2013 International Conference on Control Communication and Computing (ICCC)

A Comparative Study on the Speed Response of

BLDC Motor Using Conventional PI Controller,
Anti-windup PI Controller and Fuzzy Controller
Arundhathi Shyam Febin Daya J L
PG scholar, School of Electrical Engineering, Assistant professor (Sr), School of Electrical Engineering,
VIT University - Chennai campus, Chennai, India VIT University - Chennai campus, Chennai, India
arundhathi.shyam2012@vit.ac.in febindaya.jl@vit.ac.in

Abstract: - Brushless dc motors (BLDC) are widely used control is the vector control of BLDC motor which is the
for various applications because of high torque, high indirect vector control it uses the actual speed of the
speed and smaller size. This type of motors are non linear machine to control the speed. Where as in the direct vector
in nature and are affected highly by the non-linearities control, it use the knowledge of the voltage and current for
like load disturbance. Speed control of this motor is
speed control. Merits of BLDC motor are simplicity and low
traditionally handled by conventional PI and PID
controllers. This paper presents the speed control of cost. Responses of BLDC motor are highly influenced by
BLDC motor using anti wind up PI controller. Problems the parameter variation and load variation. Traditional
like rollover can arise in conventional PI controller due controllers are used for simple systems and it gives good
to saturation effect. In order to avoid such problems anti response for linear systems.
wind up schemes are introduced. As the fuzzy controller
has the ability to control and as it is simple to calculate, a BLDC motors are nonlinear in nature. So it requires
fuzzy controller is also designed for speed control of advanced controllers like fuzzy controller and anti wind up
BLDC motor. The control and simulation of BLDC PI controller. Recently various control solutions are used to
motor have been done using software
improve the dynamic response are explained in [11]. Fuzzy
MATLAB/SIMULINK. The simulation results using anti
wind up PI controller and fuzzy controller are compared controller has got applications in wide range of speed
with PI controller. variations [1, 3, 4]. Drawbacks of normal PI controller like
rollover can be overcome by anti wind up PI controller [2,5]
Keywords BLDC, speed response, PI controller, fuzzy, anti
windup. In this paper it presents the speed response of BLDC
motor with different controllers like PI controller, anti
I. INTRODUCTION windup PI Controller and fuzzy controller. It has done for
Conventional dc machines and brushless dc machines are different speed conditions and load conditions and their
more preferred for industrial purpose for the variable speed comparative study. Problems that arise during conventional
applications. Conventional dc machines have stationary pole PI controller are reduced by the introduction of anti windup
structure and flux is produced by the current through that PI controller [2]. It is to avoid problem that arises due to the
pole structure. In brushless dc motor it has permanent saturation effect of normal PI controller called rollover. It
magnet. Here flux is produced by the current through the occurs due to the large value of error input to the PI
permanent magnet. Reliable control method is required for controller or if the error remains constant for a long period.
the BLDC drive applications. By the proper control method So by this anti windup PI controller we can reduce the effect
only, it can overcome the nonlinearities and hence to obtain of rollover. Design of PI parameters are important, here it is
good dynamic response. BLDC motor is a type of done by using Ziegler Nichols method. For the large
permanent magnet synchronous machine (PMSM). In variations of the error fuzzy logic controllers are used.
BLDC motor back emf is trapezoidal in shape but in PMSM Various steps of fuzzy logic controller are fuzzification,
machine it is sinusoidal in shape. In the BLDC motor it has inference engine and defuzzification. A fuzzy logic
a hall sensor to sense the motor speed. This type of speed controller converts numerical values to linguistic variables

978-1-4799-0575-1/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE 68

through member ship functions, fuzzy rules are used to
evaluate these functions, by the defuzzificzation process it
(10)
convert the linguistic values to the numerical values. The
aim of this paper is to show the response of the anti windup Electromagnetic torque depends on the back emf, rotor
PI controller is better for the load variation compared to the current can expressed as:
fuzzy controller but the response of the fuzzy controller is
good for the speed variation.
(11)
II. DYNAMICS OF BLDC MOTOR
Transfer function of BLDC motor can be written as:
Voltage equations of BLDC motor are given by:

(1)
(12)

(2) Where is the mechanical time constant and is the

electrical time constant
(3)
III. SPEED CONTROL OF BLDC MOTOR

Where and is the back emf which is a function of

rotor angle which is given by:

(4)

is the back emf constant. Mathematical model of BLDC

can be represented by the following equations:

Fig.1. Block diagram for speed control of BLDC motor

Since there is no saliency self inductance are independent on In the vector control of BLDC motor, actual speed of the
the rotor position: motor is sensed using hall sensors. Error speed is given to
the controller. The controller can be PI anti windup PI or
(6) fuzzy controller. In the three phase of BLDC motor only two
phases is conducting at a time. The switching sequence of
Mutual inductance can be written as:
the inverter switches determines which two phases are going
(7) to conduct. Decoder circuit used to generate the gating
signals according to the back emf and the current of the
For a balanced three phase system phase resistance are equal motor.

(8) IV. CONTROLLER

A.PI controller
Rearranging the equation (5) gives:
Transfer function of PI controller is:
(9)
(13)

Electromagnetic torque can be expressed as:

69
Where is the proportional constant and is the integral arises in the conventional PI controller due to saturation
constant. This value of and is obtained by the Ziegler- effect. Saturation occurs due to constant input to the
Nichols rule. integrator or due to the large value of error input [15]. In the
anti windup PI controller input to the integrator is the
difference of the saturated output and the unsaturated input.
It produces improved performance than the normal PI
controller. Relation between and is given by the
equation (14).

(14)

Fig.2. Conventional PI controller

C. Fuzzy controller
For finding the value of constants it requires the transfer
Fuzzy controller can also be used for the speed control of
function of BLDC motor.Fig.2 shows the normal PI
BLDC motor. Fuzzy control involves fuzzification, rule base
controller. Transfer function of PI controller is given in the
and defuzzification. Fig.4 shows the fuzzy logic control
equation (13).
system. Fuzzification involves the conversion of the input
Transfer function of BLDC motor is: data values to linguistic variables. It uses membership
functions for the conversion. In the defuzzification it
converts fuzzified values to the actual output .Fuzzy rules
are given in the rule base. Fuzzy logic controller has two
input and one output. Two inputs are error in speed (e) and
Value of and are obtained using the Table. I change in error (de). Here it uses 49 rules. Linguistic
variables used are negative big, negative medium, negative
TABLE I. GAIN CONSTANTS - ZIEGLER NICHOLS RULE
small, positive big, positive medium, and positive small.
Membership functions for the inputs and output are shown
CONTROLLER
in the Fig.5, Fig.6, Fig.7 respectively [10, 12].

PI controller 0.9T/L 0.27T/

B. Anti windup PI controller

Fig.4. Fuzzy Logic System

Fig.3. Anti wind up PI controller Fig.5.Membership functions of error input

Anti windup PI controller is used to minimize the

performance degradation that occurs due to the effect of
rollover in the conventional PI controller. Value of gain
inverse of the proportional gain . Rollover is the problem

70
 condition for a reference speed of 500 rpm is shown in the
figure .9. The simulation result shows that response of fuzzy
logic control is fast compared to the PI control or anti wind
up controller. The settling time for fuzzy controller is
0.00469 seconds, but for a PI controller and anti wind up
PI controller is 0.0069 seconds and 0.0051 seconds
Fig.6. Membership functions of change in error input respectively. Results show that time taken by the fuzzy
control to settle are less compared to anti wind up PI and PI
controller. Under no load condition, over shoot is more for
normal PI controller compared to anti wind up PI and fuzzy
controller. For normal PI controller percentage overshoot is
5.26% and for anti wind up PI controller percentage
overshoot is 4.9%.Compared to these controllers fuzzy
controller has no overshoot under no load condition. Fig.10.
Fig.7. Membership functions of output function Shows response of machine for step increase in the speed
with a re reference speed of 500 rpm and 1000 rpm under no
Rules used for the fuzzy controller are if, then rules. Each load condition. Response of the machine for fuzzy controller
control input has seven fuzzy sets. So there are at most 49 is fast than anti wind up PI and normal PI controller. Fig
fuzzy rules. Fuzzy rules are shown in the table II given
.11.Shows the enlarged version of step changes of speed.
below.
No load response
TABLE II. FUZZY RULE BASE 600

500
e/de NB NM NS Z PS PM PB
NB NB NB NB NB NM NS Z 400 Reference
PI
Speed in rpm

FLC
NM NB NB NB NM NS Z PS 300
Anti wind up PI

NS NB NB NM NS Z PS PM
200
Z NB NM NS Z PS PM PB
PS NM NS Z PS PM PB PB 100

PM NS Z PS PM PB PB PB 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Time in seconds
PB Z PS PM PB PB PB PB
Fig.9. Speed response under no load

V. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1200

Step increase in speed

1000

Reference
800 PI
FLC
Speed in rpm

Anti wind up PI
600

400

200

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Fig.8. Simulation block diagram Time in seconds

Fig .8 shows the simulation diagram of speed Fig.10. Speed response for step increase in speed
response of BLDC motor. Speed response under no load

71
 Response of machine for loaded condition is shown in the Response when machine is loaded
510
fig.12.Under loaded condition, PI controller and anti wind
up PI controller respond faster than the fuzzy control for the 505

load variation. Also overshoot is more for fuzzy controller

500
than other controllers for high speed conditions under
loaded condition. Table III shows the performance 495

Speed in rpm
comparison of BLDC motor for different controller under 490
Reference
load and no load condition. In the table III settling time ts 485
Anti wind up PI
FLC
is in mile seconds and % Mp is the percentage overshoot. PI
480
Table IV shows the steady state error under loaded case.
Steady state error (Ess) is given in rpm. For fuzzy controller 475

under loaded condition steady state error is more than

470
conventional PI and anti wind up PI. 0.049 0.0491 0.0492 0.0493 0.0494 0.0495 0.0496 0.0497 0.0498 0.0499 0.05
Time in seconds
Step increase in speed
1050 Fig.13.Speed response under load condition

1040
TABLE. III. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
1030

Anti-wind
1020 Reference
PI FUZZY
PI up PI
1010 FLC Controller
% % %
Speed in rpm

1000
Anti wind up PI
ts Mp
ts Mp
ts Mp
990
500 rpm
6.9 5.26 5.1 4.86 4.6 0
980 no load
970 500 rpm
6.7 4.9 5.7 4.87 4.2 0
960
load
1000 rpm
950 9.0 1.6 7.1 1.4 4.1 0
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 no load
Time in seconds

Fig.11. Speed response for step increase in speed 1000 rpm

9.0 1.54 7.7 1.3 4.3 0
load
Response when machine is loaded
600 TABLE IV.PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

500 Steady State Error (Ess)

Controller
Ant windup
Reference PI FUZZY
PI
400 PI
FLC
500 rpm
load 7 4 22
Speed in rpm

Anti wind up PI
300
1000 rpm
load 9 4.7 27
200

100 VI.CONCLUSION

This paper presents the speed control of BLDC motor using

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 anti wind up PI controller and fuzzy controller for three
Time in seconds
phase BLDC motor. The simulation results are compared
Fig.12. Speed response under loaded condition with PI controller results. The conventional PI controller
results are slower compared to fuzzy and anti wind up
controllers. From the simulation results, it is clear that for

72
the load variation anti wind up PI controller gave better Controller Based on Emotional Learning Algorithm, in Proc.
response than conventional PI and fuzzy controller. Hence IEEE International Conference on Electrical Machines and
Systems (ICEMS), Nanjing, 2005.
anti wind up PI controller is found to be more suitable for [15] J. L. F. Daya and V. Subbiah, Robust control of sensorless
BLDC motor drive during load variation. It can also be permanent magnet synchronous motor drive using fuzzy
observed from the simulation results that performance of logic, in Proc. 2nd IEEE International conference on
Advanced computer control, Shenyang, 2010.
fuzzy controller is better during the case of speed variation.
[16] B K Bose, Modern Power Electronics and AC Drives, 3rd
Edition, Pearson Education Inc., 2007.
REFERENCES

[1] R. Arulmozhiyal, R. Kandibanv, Design of Fuzzy PID

Controller for Brushless DC Motor, in Proc. IEEE
International Conference on Computer Communication and
Informatics, Coimbatore, 2012.
[2] Anirban Ghoshal and Vinod John, Anti-windup Schemes
for Proportional Integral and Proportional Resonant
Controller, in Proc. National Power electronic conference,
Roorkee, 2010.
[3] M. F. Z. Abidin, D. Ishak and A. Hasni Abu Hassan, A
Comparative Study of PI, Fuzzy and Hybrid PI Fuzzy
Controller for Speed Control of Brushless DC Motor Drive,
in Proc. IEEE International conference on Computer
applications and and Industrial electronics, Malysia, 2011.
[4] J. Choi, C. W Park, S. Rhyu and H. Sung, Development and
Control of BLDC Motor using Fuzzy Models,in Proc. IEEE
international Conference on Robotics, Automation and
Mechatronics, Chengdu, 2004.
[5] C. Bohn and D.P. Atherton, An analysis package comparing
PID anti-windup strategies, IEEE Trans. controls system,
Vol.15, No. 2, pp.34-40, 1995.
[6] A. V. Sant and K. R. Rajagopal, PM Synchronous Motor
Speed Control Using Hybrid Fuzzy-PI With Novel Switching
Functions , IEEE Trans. Magnetics, Vol. 45, No. 10,
pp.4672-4675, 2009.
[7] S. Xuanfeng and L. Xingyan, BLDC motor speed servo
system based on novel P-fuzzy self-adaptive PID control , in
Proc. IEEE Int. conference on Computer appl. and Ind.
Eelctronics, Kunming, 2010.
[8] Neethu U. and Jisha V. R., Speed Control of Brushless DC
Motor: A Comparative Study, in Proc. IEEE International
Conference Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems,
Bengaluru, 2012.
[9] P. Pillay and R. Krishnan, "Modeling, simulation, and
analysis of permanent-magnet motor drives. II. The brushless
DC motor drive, IEEE Trans. industrial applications, Vol.
25, No. 2, pp.274-279, 1989.
[10] J.L Febin Daya and V. Subbiah, A novel fuzzy logic based
robust speed controller for permanent magnet synchronous
motor servo drive, in proc. IEEE TENCON 09 Region 10
conference, Singapore, 2009.
[11] Chen Chien Lee, "Fuzzy Logic in Control System: Fuzzy
Logic Controller Part I, IEEE Trans Systems, Man,
Cybernetics, Vol.20, No.2, pp.404-417, 1990.
[12] J. L Febin Daya and V. Subbiah, Implementation of Hybrid
Wavelet Fuzzy based controller for speed control of Induction
Motor Drives, Iranian Journal of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Vol 11, No. 1, pp. 11- 19, 2012.
[13] M. Singh and A. Garg, Performance Evaluation of BLDC
Motor with Conventional PI and Fuzzy Speed Controller, in
proc. IEEE international conference on power electronics,
pp.1-6, 2006.
[14] H. Niasar, A. Vahedi, and H. Moghbelli "Speed Control of a
Brushless DC Motor Drive via Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy

73