International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 733~743

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v13.i2.pp733-743  733

Switching function parameter variation analysis of a

quasi-sliding mode controlled induction motor drive

Shaija Palackappillil1,2, Asha Elizabeth Daniel1

1
Division of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, School of Engineering, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, India
2
Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Government Model Engineering College, Kochi, India

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Sliding mode control is a nonlinear, robust control that is having better load
disturbance rejection capability, less parameter sensitivity and fast dynamic
Received Sep 20, 2021 response. Conventional sliding mode control introduces high chattering that
Revised Feb 23, 2022 can degrade the induction motor (IM) drive system responses. Hence, a
Accepted Mar 16, 2022 quasi-sliding mode controller (Q-SMC) using a hyperbolic tangent function
coupled with equivalent control is designed for robust speed control of
vector-controlled IM drive in this work. This work focuses on the effect of
Keywords: variation of the switching function parameters of the Q-SMC on the
performance of the drive. Extensive simulations are performed using
Field oriented control MATLAB/Simulink software, and the switching function parameters are
Induction motor speed control adjusted across a wide range and its impact on motor performance is studied
Parameter tuning in SMC qualitatively and quantitatively, with accompanying graphical results and
Quasi-sliding mode control various transient parameters. It is observed that a Q-SMC controller with a
Robust control larger boundary layer width has less overshoot, less steady-state error, and a
Vector control lower current THD. It is also observed that even though a high gain Q-SMC
controller responds quickly, the percentage overshoot for high gain systems
is likewise large. Hence, if the boundary layer width and switching gain
parameters are optimized, a Q-SMC speed controller is a promising choice
for a high-performance IM drive.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Shaija Palackappillil
Division of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, School of Engineering
CUSAT, Kochi, Kerala, India
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Advances in power electronics, microcontrollers, processor-based systems, and nonlinear control
theory have facilitated substantial research into advanced control approaches for induction motor (IM) drives
during the last few decades. Despite the fact that induction motors are extremely complex, nonlinear, and
tightly coupled [1], numerous researchers have developed various strategies for its dynamic control without
compromising performance. Model predictive control (MPC) [2], Field oriented control (FOC), direct torque
control (DTC) [3], feedback linearization (FL) [4] and observer-based nonlinear controllers [5] have all been
presented in the literature to achieve quick dynamic responses in IM. Various sophisticated speed control
approaches such as robust control, optimal control, adaptive control [6], sliding mode control (SMC) [7], and
intelligent control techniques like fuzzy logic control [8], [9] and artificial neural network (ANN) are also
being developed.
In this work, an indirect field-oriented control (IFOC) or indirect vector control (IVC) is applied to
the IM drive. There are two control loops in vector control. The inner loop controls current, whereas the outer
loop controls speed [10]. Hysteresis controller is used in the inner current loop. Classical fixed gain

Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com

734  ISSN: 2088-8694

proportional-integral (PI) controller based IFOC drives fail to provide the desired performance when load
perturbations, parametric variations [11], external disturbances or modelling uncertainties [12] are there,
making the torque sluggish and oscillatory [13], which may become critical in certain applications. To
address this application-oriented challenge a sliding mode controller is proposed as the speed controller in
this work.
Sliding mode control is a type of nonlinear control that has two design modes: i) sliding surface design
and ii) sliding mode controller design. The sliding surface has to ensure the desired transient and steady-state
behaviours in it, while the controller has to accelerate the system trajectory to reach the sliding surface
asymptotically or in finite time [14], [15] and to remain there afterwards, eventually attaining exact tracking
asymptotically or in finite time [16]. Conventional SMC utilizes a simple sign function for switching, resulting
in high-frequency chattering in the control output [17]. Control of the direct current regulated IM drive is done
using conventional SMC and boundary SMC using a saturation function in [18]. Nguyen et al. [19] discusses
the sliding mode control of a stator-flux-oriented three-phase IM. SMC with a fuzzy mutual reference adaptive
system observer is used to estimate the speed of an IM drive in [20].
A quasi-sliding mode controller (Q-SMC) with a smooth hyperbolic tangent function is proposed in
this work as the speed controller in order to reduce the chattering issue of conventional SMC and is applied
in an indirect rotor field-oriented control (IRFOC) scheme. As the parameters of the switching function are
varied, the performance of the induction motor will be affected. This work focus to investigate on the effect
of variation of these switching function parameters on the performance of the drive. The major contributions
of this work include the design of indirect rotor field-oriented control scheme of IM drive, design of a
chatter-free quasi-sliding mode control using a hyperbolic tangent function coupled with equivalent control,
performance comparison of Q-SMC with conventional SMC and qualitative and quantitative analysis of the
impact of Q-SMC switching function parameter variation on motor performance.
This paper is organized as: section 2 presents the mathematical formulation of the sliding mode
control system in the IFOC induction motor drive system. Section 3 introduces the design of the Q-SMC with
a hyperbolic tangent switching function. The results and discussion are given in section 4 and the conclusion
in section 5.

2. SLIDING MODE SPEED CONTROL IN IFOC INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVE

The sliding mode speed control approach for vector-controlled induction motors is covered in this
section. Here, the rotor flux angle is obtained indirectly from the slip angle speed ω sl. A sliding mode
controller is used as the speed controller.

2.1. IFOC induction motor drive

The block diagram of the induction motor drive based on the indirect vector control strategy is
shown in Figure 1. Decoupling between the motor flux and torque is obtained by choosing a synchronously
rotating reference frame to model the induction motor and by aligning it in the direction of rotor flux. A
hysteresis current controller is employed to generate gate pulses to the 2-level inverter. The currents iqs and ids
are found from the d-q transformation of sensed stator currents ia, ib and ic using clarke’s and park’s
transformations. The q-axis component of current iqs is responsible for the production of torque and the d-axis
component ids for the flux. Rotor speed is measured by the encoder and these inputs are used to estimate the
rotor flux (r) and slip speed (sl) in a feed-forward manner [9]. Flux rotor position (θe) obtained is necessary
for d-q to a-b-c and a-b-c to d-q transformations. The actual speed measured is compared with the command
speed and speed error is used for generating the sliding surface in SMC and the SMC output is the reference
torque component of current (iqs*). The reference flux component of current (ids*) deduced from the desired
rotor flux is keyed into the controller. Reference ids* and iqs* are converted to ia*, ib* and ic* and the hysteresis
current controller generates the switching pulses according to the sensed stator current i a, ib and ic [21]. The
power circuit consists of a DC supply and a two-level IGBT inverter feeding the three-phase induction motor.
The developed torque is given by [8], [9], [13].
3 𝑃 𝐿𝑚 3 𝑃 𝐿𝑚
𝑇𝑒 = ⋅ ⋅ (𝑖𝑞𝑠 ⋅ 𝜓ⅆ𝑟 − 𝑖ⅆ𝑠 ⋅ 𝛹𝑞𝑟 ) = ⋅ ⋅ (𝑖𝑞𝑠 ⋅ 𝜓ⅆ𝑟 ) (1)
2 2 𝐿𝑟 2 2 𝐿𝑟

As 𝜓𝑞𝑟 = 0, in rotor field oriented control [22]. Here, P represents the number of poles, Lm represents
magnetizing inductance, Lr represents the self-inductance of the rotor, ψdr and ψqr represent rotor d-q-axes
flux linkages.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 733-743
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  735

𝑇𝑒 = 𝐾𝑇 𝑖𝑞𝑠 (2)

Where
3 𝑃 𝐿𝑚
𝐾𝑇 = ⋅ ⋅ 𝜓ⅆ𝑟 ∗ (3)
2 2 𝐿𝑟

𝜓ⅆ𝑟 ∗ is the command rotor flux.

The governing equation of the motor shaft and the load dynamics is given by [16],
ⅆ𝜔𝑚
𝑇𝑒 − 𝑇𝐿 = 𝐽 + 𝐵 ⋅ 𝜔𝑚 (4)
ⅆ𝑡

where J represents inertia (kg-m2) and ωm mechanical speed of the rotor (rad/s). Te, TL represents
electromagnetic and mechanical or load torque (N.m.) while B represents the frictional coefficient (Nm.S).
Using (2) and (4), the speed dynamics state-space model is obtained as,
ⅆ𝜔𝑚 𝐾𝑇 𝐵 𝑇𝐿
= 𝑖𝑞𝑠 − 𝜔𝑚 − (5)
ⅆ𝑡 𝐽 𝐽 𝐽

using state variables 𝑥1 = 𝜔𝑚 , 𝑥2 = 𝑥1̇ and control input 𝑢 = 𝑖𝑞𝑠 , the dynamic speed equation can be
stated as,
𝐵 𝐾𝑇 𝑇𝐿
𝑥1̇ = − 𝑥1 + 𝑢− (6)
𝐽 𝐽 𝐽

𝜔̇ 𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝑎 𝜔𝑚 + b 𝑖𝑞𝑠 ∗ + 𝑑 𝑇𝐿 (7)

𝐵 𝐾𝑇
where, 𝑎 = − < 0, 𝑏 = >0 and 𝑑=−1/𝐽 < 0
𝐽 𝐽

Figure 1. Indirect vector controlled IM with sliding mode speed controller

2.2. Sliding mode control

Using the equivalent control approach, a sliding mode control system can be written in general as [22],

𝑥̇ = 𝑓 (𝑥) + 𝑔(𝑥). 𝑢𝑐 and 𝑦 = ℎ(𝑥) (8)

Where 𝑢𝑐 (𝑡) is the control signal input and 𝑦(𝑡) is the system output. As per the equivalent control
technique, the control signal 𝑢𝑐 (𝑡) can be stated as [23],

𝑢𝑐 = 𝑢𝑒𝑞 + 𝑢𝑠𝑐 (9)

Where 𝑢𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent control action in charge of ensuring system convergence and 𝑢𝑠𝑐 is the switching
control action in charge of ensuring that the sliding surface is drawn to the system state space. The controller
task is to make the motor run at a speed ωm that correctly track the command speed ωref even in the
occurrence of model imperfections, load torque disturbances and measurement noise.
Switching function parameter variation analysis of … (Shaija Palackappillil Jacob)
736  ISSN: 2088-8694

2.2.1. Equivalent control

Taking into account the parametric fluctuations, external disturbances and uncertainties, as well as
the unmodeled dynamics for the actual induction motor drive, dynamic in (7) can be rewritten as [13]:

𝜔̇ 𝑚 = (𝑎 + 𝑎)𝜔𝑚 + ( 𝑏 + 𝑏) 𝑖𝑞𝑠 ∗ + (d + 𝑑) 𝑇𝐿 (10)

𝜔̇ 𝑚 (𝑡) = 𝑎 𝜔𝑚(𝑡) + 𝑏 𝑖𝑞𝑠 ∗ + 𝐿(𝑡) (11)

Where L(t ) represents the lumped uncertainty parameter [24], and it can be written as,

𝐿 (𝑡) = (𝑎)𝜔𝑚(𝑡) + (𝑏) 𝑖𝑞𝑠 ∗ +(d + 𝑑)𝑇𝐿 (12)

and the terms 𝑎 , 𝑏 and 𝑑 represent the uncertainties associated with the respective terms [25]. The speed
error can be stated as (13):

𝑒(𝑡) = 𝜔𝑟𝑒𝑓(𝑡) − 𝜔𝑚(𝑡) (13)

where, 𝜔𝑟𝑒𝑓(𝑡) is the speed reference and 𝜔𝑚(𝑡) is the actual rotor speed. From (11) and (13),

𝑒̇ (𝑡) = 𝜔̇ 𝑟𝑒𝑓(𝑡) − 𝑎 𝜔𝑚(𝑡) − 𝑏 𝑖𝑞𝑠 ∗ − 𝐿(𝑡) (14)

1
𝑖𝑞𝑠 ∗ = [ 𝜔̇ 𝑟𝑒𝑓(𝑡) − 𝑎 𝜔𝑚(𝑡) − 𝐿(𝑡) − 𝑒̇ (𝑡)] (15)
𝑏

2.2.2. Sliding surface

The sliding plane S is designed as a function of the speed error e(t), its integral ∫ 𝑒. 𝑑𝑡, and its
derivative 𝑒̇ (𝑡) and can be written as (16).

𝑆 = 𝑒̇ + 1 𝑒 + 2 ∫ 𝑒 𝑑𝑡 (16)

Where 1 and 2 are positive real surface parameters and these gain parameters define the slope of the
sliding manifold. The convergence of this set of equations can be demonstrated using the lyapunov energy
function V [23], [26].
1
𝑉= 𝑆2 (17)
2

2.2.3. Switching function and switching control

In conventional SMC, the switching function used is the sign function which is defined as [27] (18).

+1, 𝑖𝑓𝑠 > 0

𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝑆) = { (18)
−1, 𝑖𝑓𝑠 < 0

The switching control component is given by [5],

𝑢𝑠𝑐 = 𝑐 sgn(𝑆) (19)

where 𝑐 is the sliding coefficient.

As the uncertainty bound is difficult to estimate in practice, this coefficient must be set to a large
enough value so as to overcome the effect of any external disturbance [27]. This conventional SMC is very
simple, but it causes high chattering because of the discontinuous nature of its switching function. Chattering
is highly undesirable as it causes excessive control activity, increased power consumption and increased
torque ripples [26] and thereby causes the deterioration of overall system performance in IM drives. Hence in
this work, a quasi sliding mode control (Q-SMC) using a continuous hyperbolic tangent (tanh) function [28],
[29] is used which is discussed in section 3.

3. QUASI-SLIDING MODE SPEED CONTROL

To deal with the high-frequency chattering issue, quasi-sliding mode controller (Q-SMC) is
proposed that will make the state stay in a certain range at boundary layer neighborhood. Specifically, a
continuous hyperbolic tangent (tanh) function is proposed in this work instead of the discontinuous signum
function. Even with nonlinear control input, the chaos linked with a motor subjected to unmatched

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 733-743
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  737

uncertainty can be effectively suppressed or driven to a predictable and controlled bound using a quasi-
sliding mode control (Q-SMC) approach.

3.1. Switching function

The hyperbolic tangent function is given by (20) and is shown in Figure 2.
𝑠 𝑠
( ) −( )
𝑠 𝑒 𝜖 −𝑒 𝜖
𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ ( ) = 𝑠 𝑠 (20)
𝜖 ( ) −( )
𝑒 𝜖 +𝑒 𝜖

Where  is the boundary layer width and it determines the steepness or inclination of the tanh function (>0).
As the value of  is close to zero, the switching function will approximate the sign function. The switching
control component is given by,
𝑆
𝑢𝑠𝑐 = 𝜁𝑀 𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ ( ) (21)
𝜖

The switching gain 𝜁𝑀 is the output saturation value of the controller. Switching gain is employed in sliding
mode as the upper bound of uncertainties. The hyperbolic tangent function is a good choice for the noisy IM
control system as it is having a smoother behaviour near saturation.

Figure 2. Tanh function as switching function in Q-SMC

3.2. Switching function parameters

The two parameters of the adopted hyperbolic tangent switching function are the switching gain
𝜁𝑀 and the boundary layer width . The effect of variation of these two parameters on the performance of the
IM drive is investigated in Section 4. The transient parameters are also analyzed and discussed in the next
section.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The quasi-sliding mode speed controller based on tanh function discussed in the previous section is
developed in MATLAB/ Simulink software for a 10HP IFOC induction motor drive and the effect of
variation of the switching parameters 𝜁𝑀 and  on the performance of the motor are investigated separately in
this section. The hysteresis band h taken is 0.05. The nominal value of flux, ref is taken as 0.8 pu. Table 1
shows the specifications of the squirrel cage induction motor under investigation.

Table 1. Induction motor parameters

Parameter Value Parameter Value
Power 7500 W Nominal torque 49 Nm
Rs 0.7384 Ω J 0.0943 kg m2
Rr 0.7402 Ω B 0.000503kg m2/s
Ls 127.1 e−3H Pole pairs 2
Lr 127.1e−3H Speed (rated) 1440 rpm
Lm 124.1e−3H Voltage (rated) 400V, 3

Switching function parameter variation analysis of … (Shaija Palackappillil Jacob)

738  ISSN: 2088-8694

4.1. Comparison between conventional SMC and Q-SMC

Figure 3 depicts the speed response of a traditional SMC controller with a sign switching function
and a Q-SMC controller with a tanh switching function when subjected to a reference speed of 1440 rpm. It
is observed from the graph that the conventional SMC produces a lot of chattering whereas the oscillations in
the Q-SMC speed response die out very quickly. Also, the percentage of overshoot and undershoot are high
in conventional SMC compared to Q-SMC.

Figure 3. Speed response of conventional SMC and Q-SMC

4.2. Case 1: Variation in epsilon (𝛜) parameter of Q-SMC

4.2.1. Under no load and a command speed of 1440RPM
In this investigation, a command speed of 1440RPM is applied to the indirect vector-controlled IM
drive under no-load condition and is simulated for 1.0S duration. The switching gain 𝜁𝑀 is set as 100. The
simulation study is carried out with epsilon () values of 0.1, 1 and 10 and corresponding graphs are plotted
below. The zoomed-in view of transient speed response from 0.12S to 0.18S with the three epsilon values is
shown in Figure 4. It is evident from the graph that the Q-SMC with lower epsilon () value is having greater
overshoot and high chattering.
The steady-state current graph corresponding to epsilon () values 0.1, 1 and 10 from 0.9S to 1S are
shown in Figure 5. The switching gain 𝜁𝑀 is maintained as 100 itself. Corresponding torque responses are
plotted in Figure 6. The chattering is high for epsilon () value 0.1 as observed from Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Figure 4. Speed responses for different  values Figure 5. Stator current Ia for different  values

4.2.2. Under full load and a command speed of 1440RPM

The simulation experiment is repeated for Full load torque at a command speed of 1440RPM and
with 𝜁𝑀 100. The corresponding speed responses are shown in Figure 7. The stator current I a for different
epsilon () values are shown in Figure 8 and the torque responses in Figure 9. Here, all the three response
graphs reveal that the Q-SMC with lower epsilon () value is having greater overshoot and high chattering

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 733-743
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  739

under loaded conditions also. The sliding surface S for 𝜁𝑀 =100 and for different epsilon () values are
shown in Figure 10. The zoomed-in view is shown as a subplot in Figure 10 for a better understanding. The
figure shows that the sliding surface follows the same path and very quickly reaches zero and afterwards
maintain the state due to the controller action in all three cases. For a higher value of epsilon (), the sliding
surface is not confining to exactly zero.

Figure 6. Torque responses for different epsilon () values

Figure 7. Speed responses under full load for Figure 8. Stator Current Ia under full load for
different epsilon () values different epsilon () values

Figure 9. Torque responses under full load for Figure 10. Sliding surface S for different epsilon ()
different epsilon () values values

4.2.3. Transient performance analysis

The transient performance analysis with the different epsilon () values are carried out in simulation
for Q-SMC for a command speed of 1440RPM and for no-load and full load condition and is recorded in
Table 2. It can be found that the controller with lower epsilon () value gives higher overshoot, higher steady-
Switching function parameter variation analysis of … (Shaija Palackappillil Jacob)
740  ISSN: 2088-8694

state error and high current THD under no-load and loaded cases. The change in epsilon () values do not
affect the rise time or settling time as observed from Table 2. It can be concluded that the larger the width of
the boundary layer, the smoother the control signal [30]. Even though the boundary layer design is intended
to reduce chattering, it does not drive the system state to the origin but instead has a small residual set around
the origin. That is, a wide boundary layer width is preferable for control signal smoothness, whereas a small
boundary layer width is chosen for control accuracy. Hence an optimum value of boundary layer width
should be selected for better performance.

Table 2. Transient parameters and current THD when epsilon () is varied
For N=1440 RPM, No Load, m=100 For N=1440 RPM, Full Load, m =100
Transient Parameters
 = 0.1 =1  = 10  = 0.1 =1  = 10
Rise Time (S) 0.0886 0.0886 0.0886 0.1125 0.1125 0.1124
Settling Time (S) 0.1242 0.1242 0.1242 0.1806 0.1806 0.1806
Peak Time (S) 0.127 0.1269 0.1267 0.1842 0.1842 0.184
Peak Value(RPM) 1447.6 1447 1443.7 1443.8 1443.7 1441.6
Overshoot (%) 0.53 0.49 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.11
S S Error (%) 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.05
Current THD (%) 19.59 7.65 6.05 5.53 2.71 2.31

4.3. Case 2: Variation in switching gain (𝛇𝐌 )of Q-SMC

4.3.1. Under no load and a command speed of 1/3rd rated speed (480RPM) with epsilon () = 1
In this study, a command speed of 1/3 rd rated speed (480RPM) is applied to the IM drive under the
no-load condition with boundary layer width  set as 1 and is simulated for 1.0S duration. The simulation
work is carried out with a switching gain 𝜁𝑀 of 50, 100 and 150 respectively. Corresponding graphs are
plotted with all the three 𝜁𝑀 values. Figure 11 shows the reference speed and actual speed response obtained
with the three switching gain values. The zoomed-in view of transient speed response from 0.04S to 0.14S is
given as a subplot in it. It can be observed from the plot that, as the gain (𝜁𝑀 ) is reduced, predominant
oscillations in the speed graph are reduced and response becomes slower. The controller with 𝜁𝑀 value 50
took a much higher time to reach its peak than the system with 𝜁𝑀 value 150. Also, the higher the gain, the
greater the percentage overshoot. The corresponding stator current graphs are shown in Figure 12 and the
torque responses in Figure 13.

Figure 11. Speed responses for different gain (𝜁𝑀 ) Figure 12. Stator current Ia for different gain (𝜁𝑀 )
values values

4.3.2. Under half load and a command speed of 1/3rd rated speed (480RPM) with epsilon () = 1
The simulation experiment is repeated for half load torque at a command speed of 480RPM and
with  of 1. The corresponding speed responses for different gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values are shown in Figure 14 and its
enlarged view as a subplot in it. The Torque responses for different gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values are shown in Figure 15.
Here, all the three response graphs reveal that the Q-SMC with higher Gain (𝜁𝑀 ) is having a fast dynamic
response, large overshoot and high oscillations under loaded conditions also. The sliding surface s for =1
and for different gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values are plotted in Figure 16. It shows that the sliding surface S takes different
paths to reach the sliding manifold S=0 as the gain parameter 𝜁𝑀 is varied and afterwards maintain the state
due to the controller action in all the three cases with different gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 733-743
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  741

Figure 13. Torque responses under no load for Figure 14. Speed responses under half load for
different switching gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values different switching gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values

Figure 15. Torque responses under half load for Figure 16. Sliding surface S for different switching
different switching gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values

4.3.3. Transient performance analysis

The transient performance analysis with the different switching gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values are carried out in
simulation for Q-SMC for a command speed of 480RPM and a load torque of 0 Nm (No Load) and
24.75 Nm (Half Load) and is recorded in Table 3. By analysing the Table data, we can conclude that rise
time, settling time, peak time and steady-state error are higher for systems with lower gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values under
no-load and loaded conditions. That means the Q-SMC with higher switching gain responds quickly. Even
though the dynamic response of high gain systems is fast, the percentage overshoot is also high for high gain
systems and it is to be limited in IM drive applications. The current THD value is more or less the same in all
systems with different switching gain (𝜁𝑀 ) values as compared to case 1.
So, it can be concluded that the magnitude of chattering is proportional to switching gain which
represents the upper bound of uncertainties of the system. If this upper bound selected is too large, the
switching control law will result in a serious chattering phenomenon. Contrarily, if the bound selected is too
small, the stability conditions may not be met. Hence, an adequate switching gain value should be chosen to
decrease the amplitude of chattering at the same time preserving the existence of sliding mode control.

Table 3. Transient parameters and current THD when switching gain (𝜁𝑀 ) is varied
For N=1/3rd speed=480RPM, No Load,  =1 For N=1/3rd speed=480RPM, Half Load,  =1
Transient Parameters
m =50 m =100 m =150 m =50 m =100 m =150
Rise Time (S) 0.0833 0.0417 0.0224 0.0962 0.0478 0.024
Settling Time (S) 0.1186 0.0601 0.0446 0.183 0.0754 0.0491
Peak Time (S) 0.1208 0.0622 0.0396 0.1853 0.0773 0.0445
Peak Value (RPM) 482.16 487.4 498.7 481.44 485.1 494.44
Overshoot (%) 0.45 1.54 3.90 0.30 1.06 3.01
S S Error (%) 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.02
Current THD (%) 3.12 3.08 3.05 2.06 1.96 1.82

Switching function parameter variation analysis of … (Shaija Palackappillil Jacob)

742  ISSN: 2088-8694

5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the design of a quasi-sliding mode speed controller for the IM drive is presented with
hysteresis current controller. The indirect vector control technique and the quasi- sliding mode speed
controller as applied to an induction motor drive is discussed. The signum switching function of conventional
SMC is replaced by the hyperbolic tangent function to make it a smooth function instead of a discontinuous
function. In this work, the boundary layer width  and the switching gain 𝜁𝑀 of the tanh function are varied
across a range of 0.01 to 10 and 50 to 150 respectively and its effect on the IM drive performance is
investigated both qualitatively and quantitatively. Extensive simulations are carried out with applied
switching function parameter variations and the resulting impacts on the drive performance are analysed
graphically. Transient analysis parameters and current THD are also tabulated that represent a quantitative
measure of the effect of variation of switching function parameters on drive performance. A boundary layer
width that is too small results in significant overshoot and chattering. Choice of boundary layer width is a
trade-off between smoothness of the control signal and control accuracy. High value of switching gain results
in high overshoot and chattering in spite of a fast stabilized system response. Hence a Q-SMC with an
optimum value of boundary layer width and switching gain parameter results in enhanced performance of the
IM drive.

REFERENCES
[1] R Krishnan, “Vector-controlled Induction Motor drives,” Modern Power Electronics and AC Drives, PHI Publications, 2009.
[2] F. Wang, Z. Zhang, X. Mei, J. Rodríguez and R. Kennel, “Advanced Control Strategies of Induction Machine: Field Oriented
Control, Direct Torque Control and Model Predictive Control,” Energies, vol. 11,no. 1, pp. 1-13, 2018; doi:10.3390/en11010120.
[3] S. Hussain and M. A. Bazaz, “Review of vector control strategies for three phase induction motor drive,” International Conference
on Recent Developments in Control, Automation and Power Engineering (RDCAPE), 2015, pp. 96-101, doi:
10.1109/RDCAPE.2015.7281376.
[4] A. Devanshu, M. Singh and N. Kumar, “Sliding Mode Control of Induction Motor Drive Based on Feedback Linearization,” IETE
Journal of Research, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 256-269, 2020, doi: 10.1080/03772063.2018.1486743.
[5] R. Gunabalan and V. Subbiah, “Implementation of Field Oriented Speed Sensor less Control of Induction Motor Drive,”
International Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 727-738, 2016, doi: 10.15676/ijeei.2016.8.4.2.
[6] M. Madark, A. B. Razzouk, E. Abdelmounim, and M. E. Malah, “A New Induction Motor Adaptive Robust Vector Control based
on Backstepping,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1983-1993, 2017; doi:
10.11591/ijece.v7i4.pp1983-1993.
[7] M. Aktas, K. Awaili, M. Ehsani, and A. Arisoy, “Direct torque control versus indirect field-oriented control of induction motors for
electric vehicle applications,” Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1134-1143, 2020,
doi:10.1016/j.jestch.2020.04.002.
[8] P. J. Shaija P J and Asha Elizabeth Daniel, “An Intelligent Speed Controller Design for Indirect Vector Controlled Induction Motor
Drive System,” Procedia Technology, vol. 25, pp 801-807, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2016.08.177.
[9] K. Zeb, Z. Ali, K. Saleem, W. Uddin, M. A. Javed, and N. Christofides, “Indirect field-oriented control of induction motor drive
based on adaptive fuzzy logic controller,” Electrical Engineering (Springer), vol. 99, pp. 803-815, 2016, doi:10.1007/s00202-016-
0447-5.
[10] V. T. Ha, T. T. Minh, N. T. Lam, and N. H. Quang, “Experiment based comparative analysis of stator current controllers using
predictive current control and proportional integral control for induction motors,” Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and
Informatics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1662-1669, 2020, doi: 10.11591/eei.v9i4.2084.
[11] A. Ghezouani, B. Gasbaoui and J. Ghouili, “Sliding Mode Observer-based MRAS for Sliding Mode DTC of Induction Motor:
Electric Vehicle,” International Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 580-595, 2019, doi:
10.15676/ijeei.2019.11.3.9.
[12] G. Tarchała and T. O. Kowalska, “Discrete Sliding Mode Speed Control of Induction Motor Using Time-Varying Switching Line,”
Electronics, MDPI, vol. 9, no1, pp. 1-18, 2020, doi:10.3390/electronics9010185.
[13] H. A. Maksoud, T. Fetouh, M. S. Zaky and H. Z.. Azazi, “High suppression of disturbances and parameters mismatch for IM
drives using a novel VSC,” Journal of Electrical Systems, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 48-63, 2018.
[14] A. Mousmi, A. Abbou, Y. El. Houm, and A. Bakouri, “Real time implementation of a super twisting control of a BLDC motor,”
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3032-3040, 2019, doi:
10.11591/ijece.v9i4.pp3032-3040.
[15] F. Xu, N. An, J. Mao and S. Yang, “A New Variable Exponential Power Reaching Law of Complementary Terminal Sliding Mode
Control,” Complexity Hindawi, vol. 20, no. 8874813, pp. 1-11, 2020, doi:10.1155/2020/8874813.
[16] O. Barambones and P. Alkorta, “A robust vector control for induction motor drives with an adaptive sliding-mode control law,”
Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 348, no. 2, pp. 300–314, 2011, doi:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2010.11.008.
[17] F. R. Yaseen and W. H. Nasser, “Speed Controller of Three Phase Induction Motor Using Sliding Mode Controller,” Iraqi Journal
of Computers, Communications, Control & Systems Engineering, vol. 19, no. 1, pp 52-62, 2019, doi: 10.31026/j.eng.2019.07.07.
[18] A. W. Aditya, M. R. Rusli, B. Praharsena, E. Purwanto, D. C. Happyanto and B. Sumantri, “The Performance of FOSMC and
Boundary - SMC in Speed Controller and Current Regulator for IFOC-Based Induction Motor Drive,” International Seminar on
Application for Technology of Information and Communication, 2018, pp. 139-144, doi: 10.1109/ISEMANTIC.2018.8549842.
[19] V. Q. Nguyen, Q. T. Tran and H. N. Duong, “Stator flux-oriented control of three-phase Induction Motors using sliding mode
control,” Journal of Electrical Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 171-184, 2020.
[20] M. Touam, M. Chenafa, S. Chekroun and R. Salim, “Sensorless nonlinear sliding mode control of the induction machine at very
low speed using FM-MRAS observer,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1987-
1998, 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v12.i4.pp1987-1998.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 733-743
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  743

[21] I. C. Ogbuka et al, “A robust high-speed sliding mode control of permanent magnet synchronous motor based on simplified
hysteresis current comparison,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive System, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2021; doi:
10.11591/ijpeds.v12.i1.pp1-9.
[22] C. M. R. Oliveira , M. L. Aguiar, J. R. B. A. Monteiro, W. C. A. Pereira, G. T. Paula and T. E. P. Almeida, “Vector Control of
Induction Motor Using an Integral Sliding Mode Controller with Anti-windup,” Journal of Control, Automation and Electrical
Systems, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 169-178, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s40313-016-0228-4.
[23] D. C. Happyanto, A. W. Aditya and B. Sumantri, “Boundary–Layer Effect in Robust Sliding Mode Control for Indirect Field
Oriented Control of 3-Phase Induction Motor,” International Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 12, no. 2,
pp. 188-204, 2020, doi: 10.15676/ijeei.2020.12.2.2.
[24] A. Saghafinia, H. W. Ping, M. N. Uddin and K. S. Gaeid, “Adaptive Fuzzy Sliding-Mode Control Into Chattering-Free IM Drive,”
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 692-701, 2015, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2014.2328711.
[25] X. Wang, M. Reitz and E. E. Yaz, “Field Oriented Sliding Mode Control of Surface-Mounted Permanent Magnet AC Motors:
Theory and Applications to Electrified Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 10343-10356,
2018, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2018.2865905.
[26] F. M. Zaihidee, S. Mekhilef and M. Mubin, “Robust Speed Control of PMSM Using Sliding Mode Control (SMC)—A Review,”
Energies, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1-27, 2019; doi:10.3390/en12091669.
[27] S. Massoum, A. Meroufel, A. Massoum and W. Patrice, “DTC based on SVM for induction motor sensorless drive with fuzzy
sliding mode speed controller,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 171-
181, 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v11i1.pp171-181.
[28] S. P Jacob and A. E. Daniel, “Robust Sliding Mode Control Strategy Applied to IFOC Induction Motor Drive,” Fourth
International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), 2021, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/ICECCT52121.2021.9616948.
[29] J. S. Fang, J. S. H. Tsai, J. J. Yan and S. M. Guo, “Adaptive Chattering-Free Sliding Mode Control of Chaotic Systems with
Unknown Input Nonlinearity via Smooth Hyperbolic Tangent Function,” Hindawi, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, no.
4509674, pp. pp. 1-10, 2019; doi:10.1155/2019/4509674.
[30] M. Sulaiman, F. A. Patakor and Z. Ibrahim, “A New State-dependent of Sliding Mode Control for Three-Phase Induction Motor
Drives,” International Review on Modelling and Simulations, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1-8, 2013.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Shaija Palackappillil Jacob received her B.Tech in Electrical & Electronics

Engineering from Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala, India in 1996 and M.Tech degree in
Opto Electronics & Laser Technology from International School of Photonics, Cochin
University of Science And Technology (CUSAT), Kerala, India in 2007. She is currently
pursuing her PhD in the Division of Electrical Engineering, School of Engineering, CUSAT.
She is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical & Electronics
Engineering, Govt. Model Engineering College, Kochi, India. Her research interests include
the field of Power Electronics, Motor Drives and Intelligent Control. She can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Asha Elizebeth Daniel is a faculty in the Division of Electrical Engineering at

Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kerala, India. She has obtained her B. Tech
Degree in Electrical Engineering from NIT Calicut in 1986 and has received her master’s and
doctoral degrees from IIT Mumbai in 1995 and 2006 respectively. She is currently the
Academic Committee Nodal Officer for TEQIP III and the NBA coordinator of the
department. She has more than 40 publications to her credit in reputed international journals
and international conferences. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Switching function parameter variation analysis of … (Shaija Palackappillil Jacob)