Particle Swarm Optimized Fuzzy Controller for Indirect Vector
Control of Multilevel Inverter Fed Induction Motor
Sanjaya Kumar Sahu1,T. V. Dixit 2 and D.D. Neema3
1

Electrical Engineering, Bhilai Institute of Technology
Durg, Chhattisgarh491001, India
2

Electrical Engineering, Sarguja University
Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh-497001, India

3

Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Chhattisgarh Institute of Technology
Rajanandgaon, Chhattisgarh-491445, India

Abstract
The Particle Swarm Optimized (PSO) fuzzy controller has been
proposed for indirect vector control of induction motor. In this
proposed scheme a Neutral Point Clamped (NPC) multilevel
inverter is used and hysteresis current control technique has been
adopted for switching the IGBTs. A Mamdani type fuzzy
controller is used in place of conventional PI controller. To
ensure better performance of fuzzy controller all parameters such
as membership functions, normalizing and de-normalizing
parameters are optimized using PSO. The performance of
proposed controller is investigated under various load and speed
conditions. The simulation results show its stability and
robustness for high performance derives applications.
Keywords: Multilevel Inverter, Hysteresis Current Control,
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Fuzzy Logic Controller
(FLC).

1. Introduction
Three phase induction motors are widely used in the
industrial purpose because they show better performance
during heavy loads as well as cost effective. However the
drawbacks associated with induction motor are its nonlinear behaviour, controllability and its complexity in
developing mathematical model [1]. By vector control or
field oriented control (FOC) theory, induction motor can
be controlled like a separately excited dc motor. As a
result field and torque of the induction machine can be
controlled
independently
by
manipulating
the
corresponding field oriented quantities. There are two
methods of vector control - direct and indirect vector
control [1]–[3]. In this paper the indirect control method is
adopted, where the slip angle, the d-axis and q-axis stator
currents in synchronous reference frame are computed
from the torque and rotor flux and used for vector control.
A multi-level inverter is a power electronic circuit
built to synthesize stepped approximation of a sinusoidal
wave output voltage or current from a number of DC
voltages [4]. The multilevel inverters gained the attention
in industrial drive application due to following features
[5]:

a)

Improves the waveform quality as the level of
inverter increases.
b) Reduces the size and rating of filter components.
c) High efficiency due to low switching frequency.
d) Lower dv/dt across switches and generate lower
distorted output voltages.
e) Draw input current with very low distortion.
f) Generate smaller common-mode voltage which
reduces the stress in the motor bearings.
The several multilevel inverter topologies are: The Neutral
point clamped (NPC) inverter, Flying Capacitor Inverter
(FCI), and Cascade H-Bridge (CHB) inverter [6]. The
NPC inverters are very popular for high voltage and high
power applications. Theoretically, NPC topology with any
number of levels can be realized. But some of the
problems like complexity of switching algorithm, voltage
unbalance
across
capacitors,
voltage
clamping
requirements, and circuit layouts have limits on the level
in practical multilevel inverters [7]. In an N-level NPC,
each phase leg consists of
power switches,
clamping diodes. The DC bus requires
bulk capacitors. The line voltage has
Levels. At any given time there are (N-1) switches in each
leg which are in ON state. Voltage rating of each of the
device is assumed to be(

⁄

).

In recent years, Fuzzy logic has emerged as an
important artificial intelligence tool to characterize and
control a system, whose model is not known or ill defined.
This paper involves the development of novel
methodology to optimize the performance of Mamdani
type fuzzy logic controller based on a pre defined
objective function. The predefined objective function is
optimized by optimizing the normalization parameter, denormalization parameter and the membership functions of
the Fuzzy logic controller.
Recently, there has been a huge interest in the Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) due to its great potential as an

evolutionary algorithm, which is based on the social
behaviour of flocks of birds and schools of fish [8].Since it
is population based and self adaptive, it has gained an
increasing popularity as an efficient alternative to the
genetic algorithm (GA) in solving optimization problem.
Similar to other population-based optimization method
such as the GA, the PSO algorithm starts with random
initialization of a population of individuals in the search
space. Each particle in the search space is adjusted by its
own flying experience and the other particles flying
experience to find the global best solution at each
generation [8]. This paper proposes an implementation of
the PSO method for an off-line tuning of the normalization
parameter, de-normalization parameter and membership
functions of the fuzzy controller.

2.2 Three-Level NPC Inverter
The three-level NPC inverter with two DC link capacitors
C1 and C2 in series and a neutral point O is shown in Fig.1.

2. Modeling
Fig. 1 Three Level NPC Inverter

2.1 Induction Motor
Table 1: Switching Levels in a Three-Level NPC Inverter

The three-phase squirrel cage induction motor
mathematical equations in synchronous rotating reference
frames are as follows [1]–[3]:

Vdse  Rs idse  pdse  e qse

(1)

Vqse  Rs iqse  pqse  e dse

(2)

0  Rr idre  pdre  (e  r )qre

(3)

0  Rr iqre  pqre  (we  wr )dre

(4)

dse  Ls idse  Lmidre

(5)

e
m qr

  Li L i

(6)

dre  Lr idre  Lmidse

(7)

qre  Lr iqre  Lmiqse

(8)

Where,
e
qs

e
s qs

And electromagnetic torque
3P
Te 
Lm (iqse idre  idse iqre )
22
d
wr  r
dt
dwr
Te  jm
 Bm wr  Tl
dt

S i1

Si 2

Si 3

Si 4

i th Pole voltage Vio

ON

ON

OFF

OFF

Vdc / 2

OFF

ON

ON

OFF

0

OFF

OFF

ON

ON

Vdc / 2

Each phase of the three-level NPC inverter has two pair of
switching devices Si1 , Si 2 and Si 3 , Si 4 in series, where

i  a, b, c phases. The center of each pair is clamped to
the neutral of the DC link capacitors through the clamping
diodes D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6. Table I enumerates the
switching states for the semiconductor devices for the ithphase of this inverter. In Table-1, the switching symbols +,
0 and - respectively denote that the ith-phase terminal is
connected to the positive bus, the neutral point and the
negative bus.

2.3 Three-Level Hysteresis Current Controller
(9)
(10)
(11)

Fig. 2: Three-Level Hysteresis Switching Scheme

An analytical solution of different multilevel PWM
techniques for three-level NPC has been presented [9],
[10]. Among these techniques, the hysteresis band is used
very often because of its simplicity of implementation, fast

response current and robust structure [11], [12]. Hysteresis
band controller is used to track the line current references.
The current errors between the reference and measured
currents are used to develop three valid switching states in
each inverter leg by the hysteresis band controller.
Actual Current Reference Current

Dead Zone

2.4 Indirect Vector Control

Hysteresis
Band

ia*+h
ia*+δ
ia*
ia*-δ
ia*- Vdc/2

Vdc/2

h

-Vdc/2

+1 states) or in the upper band (through 0 and -1 states).
Here U  1 , means the switch state is Vdc / 2 ; U  0 means
the switch state is 0; and U  1 , means the switch state is
Vdc / 2 . Similarly the b-phase and c-phase switching
function for the three-phase voltage source inverter can be
obtained.

-Vdc/2

Fig.

The indirect vector control is a technique that controls
the dynamic speed of Induction motor. Unlike direct
vector control, in indirect vector control, the unit vectors
are generated in an indirect manner. Fig.4 is the phasor
diagram that explains the fundamental principle of indirect
vector control. The d s  q s axes are fixed on the stator and

3: Three-Level Hysteresis Current Control

d r  q r axes are fixed on the rotor which rotates at a speed

To develop a switching scheme for the three-level
inverter, the zero voltage level should be applied only at
appropriate instants. The switching logic must ensure that
V
there is no successive transition between dc and  Vdc
2
2
states, as this will increase the frequency of switching. A
dead zone ‘δ’ is necessary in the hysteresis band ‘h’, to
avoid switching towards two-level scheme, because of
finite sampling rate of error. Without the dead zone, when
the error becomes zero and is not detected, the opposite
polarity of forcing function follows, resulting in a twolevel scheme. However, the introduction of dead zone
increases the tracking error and has to be chosen to a
minimum value, depending on the best sampling speed
that can be achieved [13].

r . Synchronously rotating axes d e  q e are rotating ahead
of d r  q r axes by the positive slip angle  sl corresponding
to slip frequency sl . Thus

If U represents the input state to be applied, e
represents error (ia*  ia ) and ce represents the change in
error the switching logic is governed by equation (12)

e   e dt   (r  sl )dt

(13)

For decoupling control qr  0 or pqr  0 and r  dr
.Substituting the above condition in equations (3), (4), (7)
and (8).
is
Vs

Vqse


Vdss

e

s
qs

V

sl

r

Vdse

iqse

iqss

dre  r
e
ds

i



(q-d, e)
Synchronous
reference frame

r

idss

(q-d, r)
Rotor reference
frame

If e  0 then

(q-d, s)
Stator Reference
frame

U  1 for e  h
U  0 for e  

Fig. 4: Phasor diagram of Indirect Vector Control principle

U  0 for   e  h and ce  0

sl 

U  1 for   e  h and ce  0

Rr Lm iqse
Lr r

(14)

Te 

3 P Lm e
r iqs
2 2 Lr

(15)

U  -1 for e  -h
U  0 for e  -

iqse 

2 2 Lr Te
3 P Lm r

(16)

U  0 for -   e  - h and ce  0

idse 

L
1
[r  r pr ]
Lm
Rr

(17)

Else if e  0 then

U  -1 for -   e  - h and ce  0

(12)

The above logic represented in Fig.2 and Fig.3, tracks
reference current either in the lower band (through 0 and

The equations (14-17) are used to produce an adequate
field orientation. These equations could be propagated to
the set point variables [14].

*

 
*
sl

Rr Lm iqse

(18)

Lr 

*
r

2 2 Lr Te*
i 
3 P Lm r*
e*
qs

*

(20)

If it is accepted that the rotor flux set point is constant then
its derivative is zero and the above equation is simplified
as

idse 
*

r*

(21)

Lm
Using the above equations the block diagram of indirect
vector control of induction motor drive is as shown in
Fig.5.

+

*

-

r

Speed
controller
(G1)

Estimation of

i de s*

idse* , iqse* , sl*

T e*

(G2 )

i

sl*

e*
qs

Transformation
(q, d , e)  (a, b, c)
(G3 )

*
i abc

Three-Level u Three- V
abc
abc
Level
Hystersis
Inverter
Comtroller

e



+
+

r

iabc

r

Fig. 5: Block diagram of Indirect Vector Control of IM

It contains three principal blocks, G1 used as speed
*

controller, G2 used for estimation of idse , iqse , sl* andG3 used
*

for current co-ordinate transformation (q, d, e) to (a, b, c).

3. Fuzzy Logic Speed Controller
The speed controller block G1 is proposed to be a
Mamdani type fuzzy controller having five blocks namely
normalizer, fuzzifier, inference mechanism, de-fuzzifier,
and de-normalizer as shown in Fig.6. [15].
e
Normalizer

ce

Fuzzifier

(22)

Input2  ce(t )  e(t )  e(t  1)

(23)

Inference
Mechanism

du
De-Fuzzifier

Where,  is the actual speed and  is the reference
speed. Two normalization parameters (k1, k2) for inputs (e,
ce) and one de-normalization parameter (k3) for output
(du) are defined. In normalization process the input
variables are scaled in the range of (-1, +1) and in denormalization process the output values of fuzzy controller
are converted to a value depending on the terminal control
element. The determination of normalization and denormalization parameters of fuzzy controller is important
for system stability.
*

3.2Fuzzifier and De-fuzzifier

780V

r*

Reference
speed

Input1  e(t )  * (t )  (t )

(19)

1 * Lr
[r 
pr* ]
Lm
Rr

idse 

shown in Fig. The error is the difference between the
reference speed and the actual rotor speed.

The fuzzifier processes the crisp input values (e, ce) and
convert them into fuzzy values. Also the fuzzy values
obtained in fuzzy inference mechanism are converted to
crisp output (du) value by a de-fuzzifier. Here, a triangular
fuzzy membership function is defined for each input and
output values by seven clusters. For seven clusters in the
membership functions, seven linguistic variables are
defined as: Negative Big (NB), Negative Medium (NM),
Negative Small (NS), Zero (Z), Positive Small (PS),
Positive Medium (PM), Positive Big (PB). Fig.11 shows
the membership functions used to fuzzify two input values
(e, ce) and de-fuzzify output (du) of the realized fuzzy
controller. The peak or bottom points of the membership
functions to be tuned are a1 and a2 for error (e), b1 and b2
for change in error (ce) and c1 and c2 for output (du).
Therefore the design of fuzzy controller requires the
optimization of nine parameters (k1, k2, k3, a1, a2, b1, b2, c1,
c2).
(e)
NB

NM

NS

a2

a1

NM

NS

1

b2

b1

NB

NM

NS

c2

c1

PS

PM

PB

0

a1

a2

1

Z

PS

PM

PB

0

b1

b2

1

PS

PM

PB

c1

c2

1

Z

De-Fuzzifier

Knowledge
Based rule

1
NB

(ce)

New Fuzzy
Parameters
By PSO

Fig. 6: Block Diagram of Fuzzy Controller

(du)
Z

3.1 Normalizer and De- normalizer
In closed loop control system the use of error (e) and the
change in error (ce) as controller input is a universal
approach. Therefore the fuzzy controller has two inputs,
error and change in error (e, ce) and one output (du) as

1

0

Fig. 7: Membership functions of Inputs and output

In this work the centre of gravity or centroid method is
used for de-fuzzification. As a result the control increment
is obtained by the equation [16].

4.1 Particle Swarm Optimization

m

du 

 di A  i 

(24)

i 1
m

 A  i 
i 1

Here di is the distance between ith fuzzy set and the
centre, A  i  is area value of ith fuzzy set.

3.3 Knowledge Base and Inference Mechanism
The rule definition is subjective and based on expert’s
knowledge and experiences. It establishes the relationship
between outputs with inputs [17]. For the system with two
inputs and seven membership functions in each leads to
forty nine combination of these inputs, in which there are
forty nine rules. The rules are like:
R1. If e = NB and ce = NB Then du is NB
or
R2. If e = NB and ce = NM Then du is NB
or......
R49. If e = PB and ce = PB Then du is PB

Change in Error
(ce)

Table 2: Fuzzy Linguistic Rule Table

NB
NM
NS
Z
PS
PM
PB

NM
NB
NB
NB
NM
NS
Z
PS

Error (e)
NS
Z
PS
NB NB NM
NB NM NS
NM NS
Z
NS
Z
PS
Z
PS
PM
PS
PM PB
PM PB
PB

Particle Swarm Optimization is a population based
stochastic optimization technique, inspired by social
behaviour of bird flocking or fish schooling. In PSO
system the individuals called particles, fly around in a
multidimensional search space and change their position
with time. During its flight, each particle adjusts its
position according to its own experience and according to
the experience of neighbouring particle. The position or
value corresponding to its own experiences called Pbest and
corresponding to the experience of neighbouring particle is
called Gbest. The search for the optimal position advances
as the particles’ velocities and positions are updated. The
fitness of each particle’s position and iteration is
calculated using a pre defined objective (fitness) function
and the velocity of each particle is updated using the Pbest
and Gbest, which were previously defined. The velocity of
ith particle can be modified by the following equation.


vi (n  1)   (n)  vi (n)  C1  r1(n)   Pbest  xi (n) 
i



The rules are represented by a matrix called matrix
inference shown in Table 2. A feature of the rule base used
is the symmetry across the diagonal. This feature occurs in
systems where the physical behaviors of the system exhibit
symmetry, which is consistent in case of speed control of
Induction, motor.
The developed fuzzy logic uses the inference method
for each rule given by the relation
(25)
i  du   min  i (e), i (ce)  ; i  1, 2,......49

NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NM
NS
Z

4. Fuzzy Logic Speed Controller Based on
Particle Swarm Optimization

(27)



 C2  r2 (n)   Gbest  xi (n) 
i



Where, vi (n) is the velocity of ith particle at iteration n,

vi (n  1)
r1 (n)

and

is the velocity of ith particle at iteration (n + 1),

r2 (n)

are random numbers with uniform

distribution in the interval [0, 1],  (n) is the momentum
or inertial weight constant given by [18]
 max  min 
 n
nmax



 (n)  max  

(28)

Here nmax is the maximum number of iteration, max
PM
NS
Z
PS
PM
PB
PB
PB

PB
Z
PS
PM
PB
PB
PB
PB

Therefore, the resulting membership function is given by
(26)
  du   max  1(du), 2 (du),.......49 (du) 

and min are the maximum and minimum weights
respectively. Appropriate values of max and min are 0.9
and 0.4 respectively [19]. The values C1 and C2 are two
positive constants represent the social and cognitive
accelerations for the Pbest and Gbest positions, respectively.
Varying these parameters has the effect of varying the
strength of the pull towards the two bests. Values of
C1  C2  0 mean that both the cognitive and social
accelerations are absent, and particles keep moving at their
current speed until they hit a boundary of the search space
(assuming no inertia) [20].With C1  0 and C2  0 , each
particle searches for the best position in its neighbourhood,
and replaces the current best position if the new position is
better [20]. However, with C2  0 and C1  0 , the entire

swarm is attracted to a single point, Gbest. Furthermore,
having C1  C2 causes each particle to be attracted to its
own personal best position to a very high extent, resulting
in excessive wandering. On the other hand, C2  C1 results
in particles being more strongly attracted to the global best
position, thus causing particles to rush prematurely
towards optima [20]. It is demonstrated that the particle
swarm is only stable and guaranteed to converge to a
stable equilibrium point if the following conditions are
satisfied [21].

0  (C1  C2 )  4

(29)

(C1  C2 )
 1   ( n)  1
2

(30)

However, whether or not this point is actually the global
minimum cannot be guaranteed, and its acceptability as a
solution should be verified. The position of ith particle at
iteration n is xi (n) . The modified position at iteration
(n  1) is given by

xi (n  1)  xi (n)  vi (n  1)

(31)
Fig. 8: Flowchart of the PSO algorithm

4.2 Optimization of Fuzzy Controller
The Particle Swarm Optimization is applied to automate
and optimize the fuzzy controller design process. The
normalization parameters (k1, k2, k3) and the parameters of
the membership functions (a1, a2, b1, b2, c1, c2) are
optimized by optimizing a properly defined objective or
fitness function [22], [23]. In the context of optimization
our goal is to have a speed response with a short rise time,
small overshoot and near zero steady state error. In this
respect a multiple objective function is defined as
t

t

F   e dt   e tdt
0

(32)

0

Where, the first term is the measure of fast dynamic
response and the second term is the measure of steady
state error.
Thus the purpose of PSO algorithm is to minimize the
objective function. The PSO based approach to find the
minimum value of objective function is as shown in Fig.8.
The input parameters of the proposed PSO algorithm are:
nmax  100, n pop  30, nvar s  9, C1  0.5, C2  1.25,

max  0.9, min  0.4, 0  (a1, a2 , b1, b2 , c1, c2 )  1,
a2  a1, b2  b1, c2  c1, 0  k1  6.67e  3,
0  k2  1, 0  k3  6, Stall generation =20 and Function

tolerance = 1e  6.

5. Simulation Results and Discussion
Complete simulation model for vector controlled Induction
motor (IM) drive of the proposed scheme is developed
using MATLAB/ SIMULINK. The motor parameters are:
Rated Power Prated  50HP , Rated Voltage V  480volt ,
Rated Frequency F  50Hz , Pair of poles P=2, Stator
Resistance Rs  0.087 , Rotor Resistance Rr  0.228 ,
Stator Inductance Ls  0.8mH , Rotor Inductance Lr  0.8mH ,
Mutual Inductance Lm  34.7mH , Moment of Inertia
J  1.662Kg.m2 .

Fig.9 shows the scores of the fitness function
corresponding to different generation in PSO. The PSO is
terminated at 41 generations as the termination criteria
reached. The termination criteria of the algorithm is either
the maximum generations reached or the weighted average
change in the fitness function value over Stall generations
is less than function tolerance. The values of nine
parameters used in fuzzy controller and their optimized
values by particle swarm optimization are shown in
Fig.10. The particle swarm optimized input and output
membership functions are in Fig.11.

7

Pole Voltage Vp (V)

x 10

Best: 1.65831e+007 Mean: 1.65847e+007
Mean Score
Best Score
Line Voltage Vab (V)

1.75

1.7

1.65

0

10

20
30
Generation

500

0

-500

40

Fig. 9: Fitness Score versus Generation

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

3.45

3.5

3.3

3.35

3.4

3.45

3.5

3.3

3.35

3.4

3.45

3.5

Time(sec)
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
Stator Currents(A)

Score

1.8

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

Time(sec)

50

0

-50

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

Time(sec)

Fig. 12: Inverter Voltages and Currents

6
50

Speed
(rad/sec)

3.4746

4

-50
0

1

2

1

2

k1

k2

c2

Speed Error
(rad/sec)

0.5
0.6951

c1

DOM
DOM

NB
1
0.5
0
-1

DOM

1NB
0.5
0
-1

NS Z PS

-0.5

0 Error (e)

PM

0.5

-0.5
NM

Change in0Error (ce)

PM

0.5

-0.5

0
Output (du)

PB

1
PM

NS Z PS

PB

1

NS Z PS

NM

6

3
Time(sec)

4

5

6

k3

Fig.12 shows the pole voltage, line voltage and the line
currents (stator line currents) of the three-level inverter
under steady state condition. The line currents are
sinusoidal with almost negligible ripple. Fig.13 shows the
speed tracking performance of the motor following a
trapezoidal speed reference. The speed tracking
experiment is on no load condition. The motor speed
almost tracks the reference speed in both the direction. The
ripple content in the torque during the transition is
comparatively reduced with PSO fuzzy controller as
compared to simple fuzzy controller as shown in Fig.14
NM

5

Fig. 13: Trapezoidal Speed Tracking

Fig. 10: Conventional and PS Optimized fuzzy
Controller parameters

NB
1
0.5
0
-1

4

0
-1
0

0.5

Fig. 11: PS Optimized Input Output Membership
Functions of fuzzy controller

PB

1

Torque Developed
(Nm)

b2

0.2
0.0505

0.5
0.7936

0.2
0.0538

b1

3
Time(sec)

1

200

Torque Developed
(Nm)

a2

1
0.5383

a1

0.0067
6.367e-4

0

0.5
0.7008

2

2
1

Motor Speed
Reference Speed

0

3

0.2
0.0357

Values of Parameters

5

5

Fuzzy Parameters
Particle Swarm Optimized Fuzzy Parameters

200

Torque developed during trapizoidal speed tracking with Fuzzy

100
0

-100
-200
0

1
2
3
4
5
Time(sec)
Torque developed during trapizoidal speed tracking with PSO Fuzzy

6

100
0
-100
-200
0

1

2

3
Time(sec)

4

5

6

Fig. 14: Torque Developed in Trapezoidal Speed Tracking

Fig. 15 and Fig.16 show the performance of motor
for the constant reference speed of
with
constant load torque
in both fuzzy and PSO fuzzy
speed controller. The ripple in speed and torque, when the
motor achieves the reference speed is nearly zero in case
of PSO fuzzy as compared to fuzzy controller. Fig.17 and
Fig.18 show the performance of motor when the load
torque is suddenly changed from
to
and
then from
to
at constant reference speed

1

1.5

2

3

3.5

-1
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

0

5

Torque
(Nm)

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Fig. 19: Performance under variable speed and
constant torque with fuzzy
1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

Motor Speed
Reference Speed
4
4.5
5

120

Speed
(Rad./Sec)

0.5

80
50
Motor Speed
Reference Speed
4
4.5
5

0
0.5

1

1.5

2

400

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

Torque Developed
Load Torque

200
0
0

1.5

Torque Developed
Load Torque

0

0
-1
0

1

-200

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Torque
(Nm)

Speed
(Rad./Sec)
Speed Error
(Rad./Sec)

1

0
0

0.5

200

Fig. 15: Performance under constant speed and
constant torque with fuzzy
120

80

Torque Developed
Load Torque

200
0
0

Motor Speed
Reference Speed

120

0

400

Torque
(Nm)

2.5
Time(sec)

all these cases the performances are better with PSO
fuzzy as compared to fuzzy controller.
Speed
(Rad./Sec)

0.5

1

Motor Speed
Reference Speed
4
4.5
5

Torque
(Nm)

0
0

Speed Error
(Rad./Sec)

Speed
(Rad./Sec)

120

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

Torque Developed
Load Torque

200
0
-200

0.5

1

1.5

2

1

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

0
0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

200

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

-1
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4.5

5

Torque Developed
Load Torque

200
0
0

4

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

3.5

4

Fig. 18: Performance under constant speed and
variable torque with PSO fuzzy

Fig.19 and Fig.20 show the performance of the motor
when the reference speed is suddenly changed from
to
and then from
to
with a constant load torque of
Fig.21 and Fig.22 show the performance of the motor
with variable speed and variable torque. The speed is
increased from
to
and then
decreased from
to
with a
variable load torque. The load torque is increased from
to
and then it is decreased to
In

5

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Torque Developed
Load Torque
4
4.5
5

Fig. 21: Performance under variable speed and
variable torque with fuzzy
Motor Speed
Reference Speed

100
50
0
0

5

4.5

0

Motor Speed
Reference Speed
4
4.5
5

0

400

3

200

0

Speed(Rad./Sec)

1

2.5
Time(sec)

-200

Torque(Nm)

Speed
(Rad./Sec)

Speed Error
(Rad./Sec)

0.5

2

50

120

1

1.5

Motor Speed
Reference Speed

0
0

Fig. 17: Performance under constant speed and
variable torque with fuzzy

0
0

1

100

Torque Developed
Load Torque

Torque(Nm)

-1
0

0
0

Torque
(Nm)

0.5

Fig. 20: Performance under variable speed and
constant torque with PSO fuzzy

Motor Speed
Reference Speed
4
4.5
5

Speed(Rad./Sec)

0
0

400

Torque
(Nm)

0

120

Speed Error
(Rad./Sec)

Speed
(Rad./Sec)

Fig. 16: Performance under constant speed and
constant torque with PSO fuzzy

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
Time(sec)

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

200
0
-200
0

Torque Developed
Load Torque
4
4.5
5

Fig. 22: Performance under variable speed and
variable torque with PSO fuzzy

6. Conclusions
The optimal fuzzy controller has been designed off-line
using techniques of Particle Swarm Optimization for
indirect vector control of multilevel inverter fed Induction
motor. It achieves good pursuit of reference speed, starting

without overshoot and rapid rejection of disturbances with
a low drop-out speed. By comparison with fuzzy logic
controller, it testifies that this method is not only robust,
but also can improve dynamic performance of the system.

References
[1] B. K. Bose, Modern Power Electronics and AC Drives, Inc.
Upper Saddle River, NJ-07458: Prentice-Hill PTR
Companies, 2002.
[2] P. Vas, Vector control of AC machines, New York:
Clarendon, 1990.
[3] R. Krishnan, Electric motor drives modeling, analysis and
control. New Delhi: PHI Pvt. Ltd, 2003.
[4] A. Nabae, I. Takahasi, and H. Akagi, “A neutral point
clamped PWM inverter”, IEEE Transaction on Industry
Applications, Vol. 1A, No. 17,Sept./Oct 1981, pp. 518–523.
[5] J. Rodrguez, J.-S. Lai, and F. Z. Peng, “Multilevel inverters:
A survey of topologies, controls, and applications”, IEEE
Transaction on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 49, No. 4, Aug.
2002.
[6] S. Lai and F. Z. Peng, “Multilevel converters- a new breed
of power converters”, IEEE Transaction on Industry
Applications, Vol. 32, No. 3, May 1996, pp. 509–517.
[7] X. Yuan and I. Barbi, “A new diode clamping multilevel
inverter,” IEEE, conference, 1999, pp. 495–501.
[8] J. Kennedy and R. C. Eberhart, “Particle swarm
optimization,” Proceedings of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Neural
Networks, Perth, Australia,1995, pp. 1942–1948.
[9] M. Kazmierkowski and L. Malesani, “Current control
techniques for three-phase voltage-source pwm converters:
A survey,” IEEE Transaction Ind. Electron, Vol. 45, No. 5,
1998, pp. 691–703.
[10] A. Shukla, A. Ghosh, and A. Joshi, “Hysteresis modulation
of multilevel inverters,” IEEE Transaction on Power
Electronics, Vol. 26, No. 5, May 2011, pp. 1396–1408.
[11] J. Zeng, C. Yu., Q. Qi., Z. Yan., Y. Ni., B. Zhang, S. Chen,
and F. F. Wu., “A novel hysteresis current control for active
power filter with constant frequency”, Electric Power
Systems Research, Vol. 68, 2004, pp. 75–82.
[12] M. Milosevic, “Hysteresis current control in three-phase
voltage source inverter”,Zurich: Technical Report, 2003.
[13] S. Srikanthan, M. Mishra, and R. Rao, “Improved hysteresis
current control of three-level inverter for distribution static
compensator application”, IET Power Electronics, Vol. 2,
No. 5, 2009, pp. 517–526.
[14] S. K. Sahu, D. D. Neema, and T. V. Dixit, “Indirect vector
control of induction motor using ANN estimator and ANFIS
controller,” International Journal of Computer Applications,
Vol. 66, No. 14, March 2013.
[15] M. N. Uddin, T. S. Radwan, and M. A. Rahman,
“Performances of fuzzy-logic-based indirect vector control
for induction motor drive,” IEEE Transaction on Industry
Applications, Vol. 38, No. 5, Sept./Oct 2002, pp. 1219–
1225.
[16] C. C. Lee, Fuzzy Logic in Control Systems: Fuzzy Logic
controller Part 1 and Part 2. New Delhi: IEEE Press, 1990.
[17] Z. Zhao, M. Tomizuka, and S. Isaka, “Fuzzy gain
scheduling of PID controllers,” IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 23, No. 5, Sept./Oct
1993, pp. 1392–1398.

[18] Y. Bekakra and D. B. Attous, “Sensorless speed based on
MARS with tuning of PI speed controller in FOC of
induction motor drive using PSO,” World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 60, 2011, pp.
1550–1555.
[19] R. Eberhart. and Y. Shi, “Comparing inertial weights and
constriction factor in particle swarm optimization,”
Proceeding of the International Congress on Evaluationing
Computation, 2000, pp. 84–88.
[20] E. AP, Fundamentals of Computational Swarm Intelligence.
John Wiley Sons, 2005.
[21] R. Perez and K. Behdinan, “Particle swarm approach for
structural design optimization”, Computers and Structures,
Vol. 85, 2007, pp. 1579–88.
[22] V. Donescu, D. Neacsu, G. Griva, and F. Profumo, “A
systematic design method for fuzzy controller for brushless
dc motor drives,” Proc. of the 27th. IEEE Annual Power
Electronics Specialists Conference, 1996, pp. 689– 694.
[23] F. D. S. Cardoso, J. F. Martins, and V. F. Pires, “A
comparative study of a PI, neural network and fuzzy genetic
approach controllers for an ac drive,” IEEE 5thInternational
Workshop on Advanced Motion Control AMC, Coimbra,
1998, pp. 375–380.

