Recurrent-neural-network-based adaptive-backstepping control for induction servomotors

Recurrent-Neural-Network-Based

Adaptive-Backstepping Control

for Induction Servomotors

Chih-Min Lin, Senior Member, IEEE, and Chun-Fei Hsu, Member, IEEE

Abstract—This study is concerned with the position control

of an induction servomotor using a recurrent-neural-network (RNN)-based adaptive-backstepping control (RNABC) system. The adaptive-backstepping approach offers a choice of design tools for the accommodation of system uncertainties and non-linearities. The RNABC system is comprised of a backstepping controller and a robust controller. The backstepping controller containing an RNN uncertainty observer is the principal con-troller, and the robust controller is designed to dispel the effect of approximation error introduced by the uncertainty observer. Since the RNN has superior capabilities compared to the feed-forward NN for dynamic system identification, it is utilized as the uncertainty observer. In addition, the Taylor linearization technique is employed to increase the learning ability of the RNN. Meanwhile, the adaptation laws of the adaptive-backstepping ap-proach are derived in the sense of the Lyapunov function, thus, the stability of the system can be guaranteed. Finally, simulation and experimental results verify that the proposed RNABC can achieve favorable tracking performance for the induction-ser-vomotor system, even with regard to parameter variations and input-command frequency variation.

Index Terms—Adaptive control, backstepping control,

induc-tion servomotor, recurrent neural network (RNN).

I. INTRODUCTION

T

HE neural-network (NN)-based control technique has rep-resented an alternative method for solving problems in control engineering [1]–[4]. It is well known that the neural network (NN) is capable of approximating linear or nonlinear mapping through learning. By adequately choosing network structures, training methods, and sufficient input data, the NN controllers have been developed to compensate for the effects of nonlinearities and system uncertainties, so that the stability, error convergence, and robustness of the control system can be improved. However, the NNs presented in [1]–[4] are the feedforward NNs, they belong to static mapping networks. On the other hand, the recurrent NN (RNN) has capabilities superior to the feedforward NN, such as dynamic response

Manuscript received October 8, 2002; revised August 8, 2005. Abstract published on the Internet September 26, 2005. This paper was supported by the National Science Council of the Republic of China under Grant NSC 90-2213-E-155-016.

C.-M. Lin is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Yuan-Ze University, Tao-Yuan 320, Taiwan, R.O.C. (e-mail: [email protected]).

C.-F. Hsu is with the Department of Electrical and Control Engineer-ing, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan, R.O.C. (e-mail: [email protected]).

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2005.858704

and the information-storing ability [5]–[9]. Since the RNN has a feedback loop, it captures the dynamic response of a system with external feedback through delays. Thus, the RNN is a dynamic mapping network and demonstrates good control performance in the presence of uncertainties, which are usually caused by unpredictable plant-parameter variations, external-force disturbance, and unmodeled nonlinear dynamics in the practical application of dynamic systems.

In the past decade, interest in adaptive control has been increasing and many significant developments have been achieved. In order to guarantee global stability, some restric-tions had been made, such as matching condition and extended condition [10]. In an attempt to overcome these restrictions, research on adaptive-backstepping control has increased [10]–[13]. Adaptive backstepping is a systematic and recursive design methodology for nonlinear feedback control and offers a choice for accommodating unmodeled nonlinear effects and parameter uncertainty.

Induction servomotors are used in many automatic systems, including drives for printers, tap recorders, robot manipulators, etc. Recently, decoupled control approaches, such as field-oriented control and nonlinear-state feedback techniques, has been used in the design of induction-servomotor drives for high-performance applications [14], [15]. Using decoupled-control approaches, the dynamic behavior of the induction servomotor is rather similar to that of a separately excited dc motor. However, in the field-oriented method, the decoupled relationship is obtained through the proper selection of state coordinates, under the hypothesis that the rotor flux is kept constant. Therefore, the rotor speed is only asymptotically decoupled from rotor flux, and the speed is linearly related to torque current only after the rotor flux reaches steady-state values. Furthermore, in practical applications, the control performance of the induction servomotor is still influenced by the uncertainties of the plant, such as mechanical-parameter uncertainties, external-load disturbance, and unmodeled dy-namics. To deal with these uncertainties, many intelligent techniques have been adopted [13], [16]–[18]. In [13], an adaptive-backstepping control system using a hidden-layer RNN has been proposed, in which the gradient-descent method is used to derive the NN parameter-training algorithms. How-ever, the gradient-descent method cannot guarantee the global convergence of these parameters.

The motivation of this study is to design an RNN-based adaptive-backstepping control (RNABC) system for the 0278-0046/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE

1678 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 52, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2005

position control of the induction servomotor in relation to system-parameter variations. The RNABC system is comprised of a backstepping controller and a robust controller. The back-stepping controller containing an RNN uncertainty observer is designed based on the backstepping-control technique, and the robust controller is designed to dispel the effect of approxima-tion error introduced by the uncertainty observer. In this design, an output-feedback RNN is used as the uncertainty observer, which is superior to the hidden-layer RNN presented in [13] in terms of dynamic learning capability [19]. For parameter tuning, the Taylor linearization technique is used in this paper, so that all the parameters of the RNABC system can be tuned at the same time. The adaptive laws of the RNABC system are derived in the sense of the Lyapunov function, so that the stability of the system can be guaranteed. A comparison between IP control and the proposed RNABC is presented. Finally, the simulation and experimental results of the induction-servomotor control are provided to verify the effec-tiveness of the proposed RNABC scheme with regard to plant variations and input-command frequency variation.

II. INDIRECTFIELD-ORIENTEDINDUCTIONSERVOMOTOR With the implementation of field-oriented control, the me-chanical equation of an induction-servomotor drive can be simplified as [17]

J ¨θ(t) + B ˙θ(t) + Tl= Te (1)

where J is the moment of inertia, B is the damping coefficient, θ is the position, Tl represents the external load disturbance,

and Tedenotes the electric torque defined as

Te= Kti∗qs (2) Kt=
3np 2 
L2 m Lr  i∗ds (3)

where Ktis the torque constant, i∗qsis the torque-current

com-mand, i∗_dsis the flux-current command, which will be restrained to 2A at the operational points, npis the number of pole pairs,

Lmis the magnetizing inductance per phase, and Lris the rotor

inductance per phase. Then, the induction-servomotor drive system can be represented in the following form:

¨ θ(t) = −B Jθ(t) +˙ Kt J i ∗ qs(t)− 1 JTl ≡ Apθ(t) + B˙ pu(t) + DpTl (4) where Ap =−B/J, Bp= Kt/J > 0, Dp=−1/J, and

u(t) = i∗qs(t) is the control effort. Assume that the parameters

of the system are well known and the external load disturbance is absent, the nominal model of the induction-servomotor system can be presented as

¨

θ(t) = Anθ(t) + B˙ nu(t) (5)

where An=−B/J and Bn= Kt/J are the nominal values

of Ap and Bp, and the “−” symbol represents the system

parameter in the nominal condition. If uncertainties occur, i.e.,

the parameters of the system deviate from the nominal value or an external load disturbance is added into the system, the controlled system can be modified as

¨

θ(t) = (An+ ∆A) ˙θ(t) + (Bn+ ∆B)u(t) + DpTl

≡ Anθ(t) + B˙ nu(t) + d(t) (6)

where ∆A and ∆B denote the uncertainties; and d(t) is called the lumped uncertainty defined as d(t) = ∆A ˙θ(t) + ∆Bu(t) + DpTl.

III. RECURRENT-NEURAL-NETWORK-BASED ADAPTIVE-BACKSTEPPINGCONTROLSYSTEM Since the lumped uncertainty d(t) is time varying and is unknown in practical applications, an RNN is introduced to estimate this uncertainty in the following sections. Then, an RNABC system shown in Fig. 1 is proposed for the induction-servomotor control. The RNABC system is comprised of a backstepping controller with the RNN uncertainty observer and a robust controller.

A. RNN Observer

A three-layer RNN, which is shown in Fig. 2 and is com-prised of an input layer, a hidden layer, and an output layer, is utilized to estimate at real time the lumped uncertainty and its structure. The RNN maps according to

y(N ) =

n



k=1

vkΦk(|xi(N )wiy(N− 1) − sik|, δik) (7)

where xi, i = 1, 2,· · · , m, and y contain the input variables and

the output variable of the RNN, respectively, N is the number of iterations, vk represents the connective weights between the

hidden layer and the output layer, Φk represents the firing

weight of the kth neuron in the hidden layer, sik and δik are

the center and width of the radial basis function, respectively, and wi is the recurrent weight for the unit in the output layer.

The firing weight can be represented as netk(N ) = m  i=1 [xi(N )wiy(N− 1) − sik]2 δ2 ik (8) and Φk(N ) = e−netk(N ). (9)

For ease of notation, we define vectors δ, s, x, and w by collecting all the parameters of the hidden layer in RNN as

δ = [δ11· · · δm1δ12· · · δm2· · · δ1n· · · δmn]T (10)

s = [s11· · · sm1s12· · · sm2· · · s1n· · · smn]T (11)

x = [x1· · · xm]T (12)

w = [w1· · · wm]T. (13)

Then, the output of the RNN can be represented in vector form y(x, δ, s, w, v) = vTΦ(x, δ, s, w) (14)

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the RNABC induction-servomotor system.

Fig. 2. Structure of an RNN.

where v = [v1v2 · · · vn]Tand Φ = [Φ1 Φ2 · · · Φn]T. It has

been proven that there exists an RNN of (14) such that it can uniformly approximate a nonlinear, even time-varying, function [20]. The introduced RNN takes the recurrent connection from the output feedback to the input. This RNN is superior to the hidden-layer RNN presented in [13] and to the dynamic learning capability presented in [19], in which the recurrent connection was taken inside the hidden layer.

In this study, an RNN uncertainty observer is designed to estimate the system uncertainty. The output of the RNN uncer-tainty observer is the estimated lumped unceruncer-tainty ˆd. By the

universal approximation theorem, there exists an optimal RNN approximation d∗such that [20]

d = d∗+ ∆ = v∗TΦ∗+ ∆ (15)

where ∆ denotes an approximation error, and v∗and Φ∗are the optimal-parameter vectors of v and Φ, respectively. The RNN uncertainty observer is defined as

ˆ

d = ˆvTΦˆ (16)

where ˆv and ˆΦ are the estimated vectors of v∗and Φ∗, respec-tively. Define the estimated error ˜d as

˜

d = d− ˆd = d∗− ˆd + ∆ = ˜vTΦ + ˆˆ vTΦ + ˜˜ vTΦ + ∆ (17)˜ where ˜v≡ v∗− ˆv and ˜Φ≡ Φ∗− ˆΦ. In the following, the adaptive laws will be derived to online tune the center, width, and recurrent weights of the RNN observer. For achieving this goal, the Taylor-expansion linearization technique is employed to transform the nonlinear radial basis function into a partially linear form ˜ Φ =      ˜ Φ1 ˜ Φ2 .. . ˜ Φn      =       ∂Φ1 ∂δ ∂Φ2 ∂δ .. . ∂Φn ∂δ      |δ=ˆδ ˜ δ +       ∂Φ1 ∂s ∂Φ2 ∂s .. . ∂Φn ∂s      |s=ˆs˜s +       ∂Φ1 ∂w ∂Φ2 ∂w .. . ∂Φn ∂w      |w= ˆww + h˜ (18)

1680 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 52, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2005 or ˜ Φ = AT˜δ + BT˜s + CTw + h˜ (19) where A = [(∂Φ1/∂δ)· · · (∂Φn/∂δ)]|δ=ˆδ; B = [(∂Φ1/∂s) · · · (∂Φn/∂s)]|s=ˆs; C = [(∂Φ1/∂w) · · · (∂Φn/∂w)]|w= ˆw; h is a vector of higher order terms; ˜δ≡ δ∗− ˆδ; ˜s ≡ s∗− ˆs;

˜

w≡ w∗− ˆw; δ∗, s∗, and w∗are the optimal parameter vectors of δ, s, and w, respectively; ˆδ, ˆs, and ˆw are the estimated parameter vectors of δ∗, s∗, and w∗, respectively, and ∂Φk/∂δ,

∂Φk/∂s, and ∂Φk/∂w are defined as

∂Φk ∂δ T =   0 · · · 0 _{ } (k−1)×m ∂Φk ∂δ1k · · · ∂Φk ∂δmk 0· · · 0    (n−k)×m   (20) ∂Φk ∂s T =   0 · · · 0 _{ } (k−1)×m ∂Φk ∂s1k · · · ∂Φk ∂smk 0· · · 0    (n−k)×m   (21) ∂Φk ∂w T =  0 · · · 0 _{ } (k−1) ∂Φk ∂wk 0· · · 0    (n−k)   . (22)

Substituting (19) into (17), it can be obtained that ˜

d = ˜vTΦ + ˆˆ vT(ATδ + B˜ T˜s + CTw + h) + ˜˜ vTΦ + ∆˜ = ˜vTΦ + ˆˆ vTAT˜δ + ˆvTBT˜s

+ ˆvTCTw + ˆ˜ vTh + ˜vTΦ + ∆˜

= ˜vTΦ + ˜ˆ δTAˆv + ˜sTBˆv + ˜wTCˆv + ε (23) where ˆvT_AT_{δ = ˜}˜ _δT_{Aˆv, ˆv}T_BT_{˜s = ˜s}T_{Bˆv, and ˆv}T_CT_{w =˜}

˜

wT_{Cˆv are used since they are scales; and the}

approximation-error term ε≡ ˆvT_{h + ˜v}T_{Φ + ∆ is assumed to be bounded by}˜ |ε| ≤ E.

B. Design of RNABC

The idea of backstepping design is to select an appropriate function as a pseudocontrol input and each backstepping stage results in a new pseudocontrol design. When the procedure ter-minates a feedback design for the true control input, it achieves the original design objective by summing the Lyapunov func-tions associated with each individual design stage. The RNABC system design for the induction-servomotor position-tracking control is described step by step as follows.

Step 1) Define the tracking error as

e1= θ− θd (24)

and its derivative as

˙e1= ˙θ− ˙θd (25)

where θd is the input command. The ˙θ can be

viewed as a virtual control in the equation. Define the following stabilizing function

α =−c1e1+ ˙θd (26)

where c1is a positive constant.

Step 2) Define e2= ˙θ− α, then the derivative of e2 is

expressed as

˙e2= ¨θ− ˙α = ¨θ − (−c1˙e1+ ¨θd) = ¨θ− ¨θd+ c1˙e1.

(27) It also shows that

˙e1= e2− c1e1. (28)

Step 3) The control law is proposed in the following equation: u(t) = ua(t) + ub(t) (29) with ua(t) = Bn−1  −c2e2− e1− Anθ(t)˙ − ˆd− c1˙e1+ ¨θd(t)  (30) ub(t) = − Bn−1E sgn(eˆ 2) (31)

where c2 is also a positive constant. In the

back-stepping controller ua, the uncertainty ˆd is estimated

by the RNN in (16); and in the robust controller ub, ˆE is an estimated value of the

approximation-error bound. Applying the control law in (29) to the system in (6), it is obtained that

¨

θ(t)≡ Anθ(t) + B˙ n[ua(t) + ub(t)] + d(t). (32)

Substituting (30) and (31) into (32) and from (27), it is obtained that

¨

θ− ¨θd+ c1˙e1

= d− ˆd− c2e2− e1− ˆE sgn(e2)

= ˙e2. (33)

Substituting (23) into (33), yields ˙e2= ˜vTΦ + ˜ˆ δ

T

Aˆv + ˜sTBˆv + ˜wTCˆv

+ ε− c2e2− e1− ˆE sgn(e2). (34)

Step 4) Define the Lyapunov function as V  e1, e2, ˜E(t), ˜v, ˜δ, ˜s, ˜w  = 1 2e 2 1+ 1 2e 2 2+ 1 2η1 ˜ E2(t) + 1 2η2 ˜ vT˜v + 1 2η3 ˜ δT˜δ + 1 2η4 ˜sT˜s + 1 2η5 ˜ wTw (35)˜

where ˜E(t) = E− ˆE(t); and η1, η2, η3, η4, and η5

Differentiating (35) with respect to time and using (28) and (34), it is obtained that ˙ V = e1˙e1+ e2˙e2+ ˜ EE˙˜ η1 +v˜ T_˙˜v η2 +˜δ T_˙˜δ η3 +˜s T_˙˜s η4 +w˜ T_w˙˜ η5 = e1(e2− c1e1) + e2  ˜ vTΦ + ˜ˆ δTAˆv + ˜sTBˆv + ˜wTCˆv + ε− c2e2− e1− ˆE sgn(e2)  +E˜ ˙˜ E η1 +v˜ T_˙˜v η2 +δ˜ T_˙˜δ η3 +˜s T_˙˜s η4 +w˜ T_w˙˜ η5 =− c1e21− c2e22+ ˜vT  e2Φ +ˆ ˙˜v η2  + ˜δT  e2Aˆv + ˙˜δ η3  + ˜sT  e2Bˆv + ˙˜s η4  + ˜wT  e2Cˆv + ˙˜ w η5  + εe2− ˆE|e2| + ˜ EE˙˜ η1 . (36)

If the adaptive laws for the RNN observer and the approximation-error bound are chosen as

˙ˆ E(t) =− ˜E(t) = η1|e2| (37) ˙ˆv = − ˙˜v = η2e2Φˆ (38) ˙ˆδ = − ˙˜δ = η3e2Aˆv (39) ˙ˆs = − ˙˜s = η4e2Bˆv (40) ˙ˆ w = − ˙˜w = η5e2Cˆv (41) then (36) becomes ˙ V  e1, e2, ˜E(t), ˜v, ˜δ, ˜s, ˜w  =−c1e21− c2e22+ εe2− E|e2| ≤ −c1e21− c2e22− (E − |ε|) |e2| ≤ 0. (42)

In summary, the RNABC system is designed as in (29), which is comprised of a backstepping controller in (30) and a robust controller in (31). In the backstepping controller, the lumped uncertainty is estimated by an RNN in (16), where the parame-ters ˆv, ˆδ, ˆs, and ˆw of the RNN observer are adjusted by (38) through (41). In the robust controller, the approximation-error bound is estimated by (37). With this control system, the system stability can be guaranteed.

IV. SIMULATION ANDEXPERIMENTALRESULTS The curve-fitting technique based on step–position response is applied to find the model of the drive system in the nominal condition (Tl= 0 N· m without parameter variations). The

results are

Kt= 0.6851 N· m/A

J = 0.25× 10−3N· m · s2

B = 19.84× 10−3N· m · s/rad. (43)

Fig. 3. Simulation results of the IP-control induction-servomotor system due to a sinusoidal command.

To investigate the effectiveness of the proposed RNABC sys-tem, two simulation cases including parameter variations are considered as

Case 1 : J = J , B = B (44)

Case 2 : J = 2× J, B = 2 × B. (45)

In (28) and (30), c1 and c2 will influence the convergent

speed of e1and e2, respectively; however, they also influence

the control gain of ua. In (38) through (41), the

parame-ters η2, η3, η4, and η5 are the leaning rates of the RNN.

If η2, η3, η4, and η5 are chosen to be small, then the

pa-rameter convergence of the RNN can be achieved; however, this will result in slow learning speed. On the other hand, if η2, η3, η4, and η5 are chosen to be large, then the

learn-ing speed will be fast; however, the RNN system may be-come more unstable for the parameter convergence. In (37),

1682 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 52, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2005

Fig. 4. Simulation results of the RNABC induction-servomotor system due to a sinusoidal command.

the parameter η1 is the learning rate of the

approximation-error bound. Similar to η2, η3, η4, and η5, the choice of

η1 will influence the convergent speed of the error bound.

The parameters in control systems are chosen as c1= 20,

c2= 20, η1= 0.1, and η2= η3= η4= η5= 100. These

para-meters are chosen through trials to achieve a favorable control performance.

In the simulations, an IP control system is considered for comparison [17]. The simulation results of an IP induction-servomotor system due to a sinusoidal command are shown in Fig. 3, in which the frequency of the sinusoidal command is doubled at the seventh second. The tracking responses are shown in Fig. 3(a) and (c); and the associated control efforts are shown in Fig. 3(b) and (d) for cases 1 and 2, respectively. From Fig. 3(a), accurate tracking performance can be obtained at the first 7 s; however, degenerate tracking responses are pro-duced when the frequency of the input command is increased

Fig. 5. Experimental results of the IP-control induction-servomotor system due to a sinusoidal command.

at the seventh second. Fig. 3(b) shows that when parameter variation occurs, degenerate tracking responses always result. For comparison, the proposed RNABC scheme is applied for an induction-servomotor control system with the same simulation conditions. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 4. The tracking responses are shown in Fig. 4(a) and (c); and the associated control efforts are shown in Fig. 4(b) and (d) for cases 1 and 2, respectively. The simulation results show that the RNABC can achieve favorable tracking performance even in relation to parameter variations and input-command frequency variation.

Some experimental results are provided to further demon-strate the effectiveness of the proposed control scheme. Two experimental conditions are demonstrated; one is the condition where the rotor inertia is the nominal value (condition 1), and the other is the condition 2, which increases the rotor

Fig. 6. Experimental results of the RNABC induction-servomotor system due to a sinusoidal command.

inertia to approximate two times that of the nominal value; and doubles the frequency of the sinusoidal command at the seventh second. The experimental results of IP control and RNABC due to the sinusoidal command are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The experimental results confirm the results of the simulation, that the proposed RNABC can achieve better control performance than the IP control.

V. CONCLUSION

This study has successfully demonstrated the application of a recurrent-neural-network (RNN)-based adaptive-backstepping control (RNABC) system, which is comprised of a backstep-ping controller with an RNN uncertainty observer and a robust controller, to the position control of an induction servomotor. The uncertainty observer uses an RNN to estimate the lumped

uncertainty in real time. All the adaptive laws of the RNABC system are derived in the sense of the Lyapunov function, so that the stability of the system can be guaranteed. Moreover, simulation and experimental results were carried out to illus-trate the effectiveness of the proposed control system. Finally, a comparison between IP control and the proposed RNABC is presented. The simulation and experimental results show that the proposed RNABC has achieved better control performance than the IP control.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their valuable comments.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Zhihong, H. R. Wu, and M. Palaniswami, “An adaptive tracking controller using neural networks for a class of nonlinear systems,” IEEE

Trans. Neural Netw., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 947–1031, Sep. 1998.

[2] S. S. Ge, C. C. Hang, and T. Zhang, “Adaptive neural network control of nonlinear systems by state and output feedback,” IEEE Trans. Syst.,

Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 818–828, Dec. 1999.

[3] S. Seshagiri and H. K. Khalil, “Output feedback control of nonlinear systems using RBF neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 69–79, Jan. 2000.

[4] C. M. Lin and C. F. Hsu, “Neural network hybrid control for antilock braking systems,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 351–359, Mar. 2003.

[5] C. C. Ku and K. Y. Lee, “Diagonal recurrent neural networks for dynamic systems control,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 144–156, Jan. 1995.

[6] T. W. S. Chow and Y. Fang, “A recurrent neural-network-based real-time learning control strategy applied to nonlinear systems with unknown dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 151–161, Feb. 1998.

[7] C. H. Lee and C. C. Teng, “Identification and control of dynamic systems using recurrent fuzzy neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 349–366, Aug. 2000.

[8] C. M. Lin and C. F. Hsu, “Recurrent neural network adaptive control of wing rock motion,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1163–1165, Jun. 2002.

[9] ——, “Supervisory recurrent fuzzy neural network control of wing rock for slender delta wings,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 733–742, Oct. 2004.

[10] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. V. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and

Adaptive Control Design. New York: Wiley, 1995.

[11] H. J. Shieh and K. K. Shyu, “Nonlinear sliding-mode torque control with adaptive backstepping approach for induction motor drive,” IEEE

Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 380–389, Apr. 1999.

[12] T. Zhang, S. S. Ge, and C. C. Hang, “Adaptive neural network control for strict-feedback nonlinear systems using backstepping design,”

Automatica, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 1835–1846, Dec. 2000.

[13] F. J. Lin, R. J. Wai, W. D. Chou, and S. P. Hsu, “Adaptive backstepping control using recurrent neural network for linear induction motor drive,”

IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 134–146, Feb. 2002.

[14] C. M. Liaw and F. J. Lin, “Position control with fuzzy adaptation for induction servomotor drive,” Proc. IEE—Electr. Power Appl., vol. 142, no. 6, pp. 397–404, Nov. 1995.

[15] C. M. Lin and C. F. Hsu, “Adaptive fuzzy sliding-mode control for induc-tion servomotor systems,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 362–368, Jun. 2004.

[16] T. C. Huang and M. A. El-Sharkawi, “High performance speed and posi-tion tracking of inducposi-tion motors using multi-layer fuzzy control,” IEEE

Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 353–358, Jun. 1996.

[17] F. J. Lin, R. J. Wai, C. H. Lin, and D. C. Liu, “Decoupled stator-flux-oriented induction motor drive with fuzzy neural network uncer-tainty observer,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 356–367, Apr. 2000.

[18] C. M. Lin and C. F. Hsu, “Neural-network-based adaptive control for induction servomotor drive system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 115–123, Feb. 2002.

1684 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 52, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2005

[19] C. T. Lin and C. S. G. Lee, Neural Fuzzy Systems: A Neuro-Fuzzy

Synergism to Intelligent Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

1996.

[20] L. X. Wang, Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control: Design and Stability

Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994.

Chih-Min Lin (S’86–M’87–SM’99) received the

B.S. and M.S. degrees in control engineering and the Ph.D. degree in electronics engineering from National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1981, 1983, and 1986, respectively.

From 1986 to 1992, he was with the Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology as a Deputy Director of system engineering of missile systems. He also served concurrently as an Associate Pro-fessor at Chiao Tung University and Chung Yuan University, Taiwan, R.O.C. He joined the faculty of the Department of Electrical Engineering, Yuan-Ze University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1993 and is currently a Professor and the Chairman of the Department of Electrical Engineering. From 1997 to 1998, he was the Honor Research Fellow in the University of Auckland, New Zealand. His research interests include fuzzy neural networks (NNs), cerebellar-model articulation control, guidance and flight control, and systems engineering.

Dr. Lin has served as a Committee Member of the Chinese Automatic Control Society and as Deputy Chairman of the IEEE Control Systems Society, Taipei Section.

Chun-Fei Hsu (M’05) received the B.S., M.S., and

Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Yuan-Ze University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1997, 1999, and 2002, respectively.

After graduation, he joined the Department of Electrical and Control Engineering, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C. From 2002 to 2005, he was conducting postdoctoral research on virtual-reality dynamic simulators and intelligent transportation systems. His research in-terests include servomotor drives, adaptive control, flight control, and intelligent control using fuzzy-system and neural-network technologies.