5820 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 66, NO.
8, AUGUST 2019
An Improved Model Predictive Direct Torque
Control Strategy for Reducing Harmonic
Currents and Torque Ripples of Five-Phase
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors
Guibin Li , Jiefeng Hu , Senior Member, IEEE, Yongdong Li, and Jianguo Zhu , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Five-phase permanent magnet synchronous
motors offer merits of high fault tolerant capability and high
torque per rms ampere and, thus, are suitable for appli-
cations, such as aerospace and electric vehicles. However,
the complex machine model causes difficulties in controller
design. Besides, having 32 voltage vectors with various ef-
fects on currents and torque, the selection of the optimal
switching state becomes a challenge to achieve a perfor-
mance tradeoff. This paper proposes an improved model
predictive direct torque control (MPDTC) strategy consist-
ing of a quadratic evaluation method (QEM) and a harmonic
voltage elimination method (HVEM). In QEM, the preliminary
vector is first chosen from the vectors of the outer decagon
according to a cost function for torque and flux regulation.
This preliminary vector, composed of three sets of different
amplitudes, is further synthesized according to the error be-
tween the actual torque/flux and the references. In this way,
the optimal voltage vector can be obtained without signif-
icantly increasing the computational burden. In HVEM, by
subtracting the harmonics voltage component from the vec-
tor determined previously in QEM, the final voltage vector is
obtained for mitigating stator harmonic currents. The pro-
posed control strategy is compared with the conventional
MPDTC approach. The results confirm the effectiveness of
the proposed methods with good steady-state performance
while maintaining quick dynamic responses.
Index Terms—Current harmonics, five-phase permanent
magnet synchronous motor (PMSM), model predictive
direct torque control (MPDTC), torque ripples, zero-
sequence voltage injection.
Manuscript received January 12, 2018; revised May 24, 2018 and Au-
gust 9, 2018; accepted September 1, 2018. Date of publication Septem-
ber 20, 2018; date of current version March 29, 2019. This work was
supported in part by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University under Grant
1-ZE7J and in part by Hong Kong Research Grants Council under Grant
PolyU252040/17E. (Corresponding author: Jiefeng Hu.)
G. Li and J. Hu are with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong (e-mail:,
guibinlee@foxmail.com; jerry.hu@polyu.edu.hk).
Y. Li is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100084, China (e-mail:, liyd@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn).
J. Zhu is with the School of Electrical and Information Engineering,
University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia (e-mail:, jianguo.
zhu@sydney.edu.au).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2018.2870359
0278-0046 © 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
I. INTRODUCTION
VER the past few years, permanent magnet synchronous
O motors (PMSMs) have been widely used due to their high
torque-to-inertia ratio, high efficiency, and high power density
[1], [2]. Recently, multiphase motors have attracted increasing
attention [3], [4] because of their various advantages over the
traditional three-phase counterparts, such as improved fault tol-
erance or better reliability, and larger torque constant for the
same volume, which means smaller stator phase current and,
thus, lower converter cost by using semiconductor switches of
lower current ratings. Due to these merits, multiphase machines
have promising applications in marine electric propulsion, elec-
tric vehicles (EVs), “more electric aircrafts,” locomotive trac-
tions, and high-power applications in general [5], [6].
A five-phase PMSM has the advantages of both multiphase
and permanent magnet motors. Different from the traditional
three-phase machines, five-phase PMSMs have a fundamental
subspace (dq plane) and a harmonic subspace (xy plane). With
the sinusoidal winding distribution, the fundamental subspace
currents determine the performance of torque and flux linkage,
while the low-order voltage harmonics in harmonic subspace
generate highly distorted currents in the stator winding due to
their magnitudes being limited only by the winding resistance
and leakage inductance [1]. The complex modeling of five-
phase PMSM, together with the two subspaces for expressing the
machine variables, brings difficulties in the analysis of system
behavior and, hence, in the design of the controller.
Vector control (VC) is one of the commonly used methods
in five-phase PMSM drives [3]. It is composed of current and
voltage feedback loops with proportional integral differential
controllers. Such cascaded linear configurations suffer from the
complicated coordinate transformation, time consuming param-
eter tuning, and slow dynamic response [2], [4]–[8]. The direct
torque control (DTC) scheme, widely applied in three-phase
PMSMs, has also been extended to five-phase PMSM drives.
DTC selects the voltage vector from a switching table without
the need of inner current loops, resulting in a fast dynamic re-
sponse. However, its main drawbacks are high torque and flux
ripples. Another concern in five-phase PMSM drives is the stator
harmonic currents. In [9], the switching table based DTC was
developed for dual three-phase PMSMs. Since it did not control
LI et al.: IMPROVED MPDTC STRATEGY FOR REDUCING HARMONIC CURRENTS AND TORQUE RIPPLES OF FIVE-PHASE PMSMS 5821

the harmonic subspace, besides the high torque and flux ripples,
the stator currents present oscillations with a large amount of
harmonics.
The model predictive DTC (MPDTC) has drawn greater at-
tention in recent years due to its simple structure and excellent
dynamic performance. Nevertheless, the application of MPDTC
in five-phase synchronous motor is still at the pilot stage [10],
[11]. In [12] and [13], the virtual vector is employed by adjust-
ing the evaluation function, but the results are unsatisfactory;
the control strategies are complex, and the application is only
for six-phase motors. Fig. 1. Scheme of the five-phase PMSM drive system.
An MPDTC method was developed to control the harmonic
plane in [13] for a six-phase motor by adding the dq, xy subspace
parts in the evaluation function. The drawback of this method is
that it is difficult to adjust the cost function weighting factors. In
[8], 36 voltage vectors are evaluated one by one for a six-phase
PMSM to obtain an optimum voltage vector that can eliminate
the harmonic currents, but the freedom of voltage vector is lost.
Although the reduced voltage vector can eliminate the harmonic
currents, it is uncertain if it is optimal for flux linkage, torque,
and current control. The research works presented in [11]–[17]
are mainly focused on six-phase symmetrical winding PMSMs
to reduce the torque ripples and optimize the current harmonic
Fig. 2. State of voltage vectors. (a) αβ planes. (b) xs,ys planes.
characteristics. Also, they are usually implemented by using
continuous control set model predictive control [10], [13], [17],
but the application of finite control set model predictive control The switching state of each leg in Fig. 1, namely, Sa , Sb ,
to five-phase PMSM is rarely reported in the literature. Sc , Sd , and Se , can be controlled to be ON (S = 1) or OFF
This paper proposes two control schemes based on MPDTC (S = 0). In each leg, S = 1 indicates that the upper switch is ON,
for optimizing the current and torque of five-phase PMSMs. The whereas S = 0 means that the switch at the bottom is ON. As a re-
proposed quadratic evaluation method (QEM) scheme aims to sult, there are a total of 32 voltage vectors consisting of two null
select the optimal voltage vector with reduced computational vectors and 30 active vectors. The system variables can be rep-
burden. The preliminary vector is chosen by evaluating ten volt- resented in two planes as shown in Fig. 2, where the xs, ys plane
age vectors of the decagon according to the cost function. After is mapped from the αβ plane. The αβ planes and xs, ys planes
that, the final optimal vector is further determined from that are transformed into a rotating coordinate system by coordinate
preliminary vector according to the error level between the ac- transformation to obtain the dq plane and the xy plane.
tual torque and its reference without applying the cost func- The decoupling transformation matrix for five-phase PMSMs
tion again. On the other hand, the harmonic voltage elimination can be expressed as follows:
method (HVEM) can eliminate the current harmonics in the xy ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
subspace of the five-phase PMSM and reduce the torque ripple. Vα cos 0 cos 1a cos 2a cos 3a cos 4a VA
⎢V ⎥ ⎢ sin 0 sin 1a sin 2a sin 3a sin 4a ⎥ ⎢ V ⎥
The detailed simulation and experimental results are provided ⎢ β ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ B ⎥
⎢ ⎥ 2⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method. The rest of ⎢ Vxs ⎥ = ⎢cos 0 cos 3a cos 6a cos 9a cos 12a⎥ ⎢ VC ⎥
⎢ ⎥ 5⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the model- ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
ing of five-phase PMSMs. In Sections III and IV, the principles ⎣ Vy s ⎦ ⎣ sin 0 sin 3a sin 6a sin 9a sin 12a ⎦ ⎣ VD ⎦
of the conventional and proposed MPDTC are elaborated in de- Vz s 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 VE
tail. Sections V and VI compare and discuss the performances (1)
of the proposed and the conventional MPDTC methods through
numerical simulation and experimental testing. Section VII con- where a = 2π/5 is the angle difference between two phases. The
cludes this paper. transformation matrix from the αβ coordinate system to the dq
coordinate system can be expressed as follows:
⎡ ⎤
cos θ sin θ 0 0 0
II. MODELING OF FIVE-PHASE PMSMS
⎢ − sin θ cos θ 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Fig. 1 illustrates schematically the symmetrical five-phase ⎢ ⎥
⎢
P5 = ⎢ 0 0 1 0 0⎥ (2)
PMSM winding structure and the power circuit of the five-leg ⎥
⎢ ⎥
inverter drive. Compared with the traditional three-phase motor, ⎣ 0 0 0 1 0⎦
the five-phase PMSM has a higher power density and smaller
0 0 0 0 1
torque ripples due to the elimination of the fifth harmonic on
the electromagnetic structure [18]–[20]. where θ is the rotor position angle.
5822 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 66, NO. 8, AUGUST 2019

The machine equations of five-phase PMSMs can be ex-

pressed as [1]

did
Ud = Rs id + Ld − ωiq Lq
dt
diq
Uq = Rs iq + Lq + ω (id Ld + ψm ) (3)
dt
where Ld is the stator d-axis inductance, Lq is the stator q-axis
inductance, id is the stator d-axis current, iq is the stator q-axis
current, ω is the electric angle speed, and ψm is the permanent Fig. 3. Control scheme of the conventional MPDTC.
magnet fluxes linking the stator windings.
The stator d-axis inductance and the stator q-axis inductance
can be expressed as follows:

Ld = Ls + Ms + 5/2LM
Ld = Ls + Ms − 5/2LM (4)

where Ls is the stator self-inductance per phase, which is the

average self-inductance of each of the stator windings; Lm is the
stator inductance fluctuation, which is the amplitude of the fluc-
tuation in self-inductance and mutual inductance with changing
rotor angle; and Ms is the stator mutual inductance, which is
the average mutual inductance between the stator windings.
The motor output torque can be determined by the following
equation:
5P
Te = [iq (id Ld + ψm ) − id iq Lq ] (5)
22
where P is the number of poles.
According to (5), the output torque of the five-phase PMSM is
not directly related to the xy subspace current. In the five-phase
system, the fundamental and harmonics with an order of 10h ± 1
(h is an integer) will be ac components with a frequency of (10h
± 1)ω (ω is the fundamental frequency) in the dq subspace.
Harmonics with an order of 10h ± 3 will be ac components
with a frequency (10h ± 3)ω in the xy subspace. When the
machine winding is sinusoidally distributed, the presence of
lower order voltage harmonics in the xy subspace will result in
large harmonic currents since their amplitudes are only limited
by the winding resistance and leakage inductance [1]. On the
other hand, the output torque is dominantly determined by the
fundamental voltage in the dq plane. The appropriate voltage
vector can, therefore, be selected by considering its effects on
both the output torque and harmonic currents.
III. CONVENTIONAL MPDTC METHOD
In the MPDTC for three-phase PMSMs, the selection of the
optimal control is usually based on the cost function formulated
with torque and flux regulation. For the MPDTC of five-phase
PMSM, the integration of torque and flux constraints into the
cost function is not feasible due to the presence of the harmonic
space. Consequently, the xy subspace current must be introduced
and the harmonic current must be considered in the cost function
Fig. 4. Control scheme of the proposed MPDTC.
as follows:
     
g = λ1 Te∗ − Tek +1  + λ2 ψs∗ − ψsk +1  + λ3 i∗x − ikx +1 
 
+ λ4 i∗y − iky +1  (6)
where
Tek +1 = 2.5P/2(ikq +1 ψdk +1 − ikd +1 ψqk +1 )
2 2
ψsk +1 = (Ld ikd +1 + ψf ) + (Lq ikq +1 ) . (7)
In this case, the whole cost function will weaken the con-
trollability of flux and torque to some extent. Fig. 3 depicts
schematically the block diagram of the conventional MPDTC
for five-phase PMSMs.
Although the conventional MPDTC of five-phase PMSMs
can eliminate the harmonic current by including the harmonic
current constraint in the cost function, the control performance
remains unsatisfactory [21]. Indeed, having 32 voltage vectors
provides a greater flexibility in selecting switching states of
the inverter. Nevertheless, the inappropriate selection of voltage
vectors can cause pulsations in the flux and torque. Besides,
it will result in significant computational burden. In order to
reduce this computational burden, one of the solutions is to
select only ten voltage vectors from the outer decagon at the
dq plane as alternative voltage vectors. Obviously, such large
voltage vectors will cause large torque and flux ripples.
IV. PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSED MPDTC
Fig. 4 illustrates the block diagram of the proposed control
strategy for the five-phase PMSM, which includes two new
schemes, namely QEM and HVEM. Compared with the con-
ventional MPDTC, the main merits of the proposed MPDTC
strategy are as follows:
LI et al.: IMPROVED MPDTC STRATEGY FOR REDUCING HARMONIC CURRENTS AND TORQUE RIPPLES OF FIVE-PHASE PMSMS
1) effective reduction of torque and flux ripples;
2) mitigation of the stator current harmonics;
3) capability of evaluating 30 voltage vectors with little in-
crease of computing time.
The implementation of the proposed strategy is specified
as the following. First, the ten largest vectors from the outer
decagon, together with the present status of the system, are
used to predict the flux and torque of the machine according
to the prediction model. Second, the preliminary voltage vector
is determined according to the cost function as Vopt−1 . Then,
to improve the torque and flux performance, the selected vec-
tor is further optimized based on the QEM as Vopt−2 . Subse-
quently, in HVEM, the harmonic components that will cause
stator harmonic currents are eliminated to obtain the ultimate
optimal voltage vector. Finally, the switching signals are gen-
erated by using the continuous carrier wave based space vector
pulsewidth modulation (SVPWM) [22], [23]. The carrier-wave-
based SVPWM can not only improve the voltage utilization but
also achieve HVEM modulation.
A. Quadratic Evaluation Method
As shown in Fig. 2(a), a total of 30 voltage vectors can be
chosen in a five-phase PMSM system without considering two
null vectors. However, it is time consuming if all these volt-
age vectors are evaluated for the cost function. The traditional
switching table based voltage DTC are used to select the largest
voltage vectors from the outmost decagon [24]. Although the
computational burden can be reduced, the largest voltage vectors
cause large torque and flux ripples because the same switching
state is kept as long as the outputs of the flux and torque hys-
teresis controller remain unchanged. By replacing the switching
table and the hysteresis controllers, the flux and torque ripples
can, therefore, be reduced in MPDTC where the voltage vector
is optimized according to the predefined criteria in every con-
trol cycle. The main limitation is, as mentioned previously, the
time-consuming evaluation of the effects of 30 voltage vectors.
That is why only the ten outer largest vectors are employed in
the traditional MPDTC [25], and obviously the flexibility in se-
lecting inverter switching states has not been fully exploited. In
this sense, the question now becomes: Is it possible to achieve
similar or even better performance than the traditional MPDTC
by fully evaluating all the possible switching states without the
need of additional computing time? To provide a positive answer
to the aforementioned question, this paper proposes a method
that needs to evaluate only 10 voltage vectors chosen from
30 voltage vectors for the cost function. This method gener-
ates the optimal voltage vector by the two stages of selection.
In the first stage, a preliminary voltage vector is taken from
the outmost ten voltage vectors, as shown in Fig. 2. The cost
function in the first stage is given by the following equation:
∗ 2
∗ 2 sector, applying V12 has a larger effect on the torque than the
Te − Tek +1 ψs − ψsk +1
g = λ1 + λ2 (8)
TN ψN
where λ1 and λ2 are both set to 0.5. As shown in Fig. 2(a), each
outmost voltage vector can be decomposed into three vectors
with different amplitudes, namely, large, medium, and small
5823
vectors. Since these three vectors have different effects on the
torque and flux, it is necessary to conduct further vector se-
lection. Therefore, after obtaining the preliminary voltage vec-
tor, one can select the optimal voltage vector from the large,
medium, and small vectors in the second stage, according to the
level of difference between the actual and the referenced values
of torque and flux. The rule of selection is as the following:
1) If the difference is large, the large voltage vector is se-
lected for faster response;
2) if the difference is medium, the medium voltage vector is
selected;
3) if the difference is small, the small voltage vector is se-
lected to minimize the ripples since the actual torque and
flux have reached their references closely, and the torque
and flux differences are evaluated, respectively, by
 
 Te 
g2 =   (9)
TN 
and
 
 ψs 
g2 =  .
 (10)
ψN
The selection of (9) or (10) for the second-step voltage vector
determination is according to the position of the stator flux
and the position of the preliminary (first-step) voltage vector.
Assuming that the stator flux ψs is currently located in the first
sector, there are two interesting phenomena. First, the effects of
vectors on the stator flux and torque are various. For example,
V24 can be selected to increase the flux amplitude and torque
simultaneously, whereas V17 can be selected to increase the
flux amplitude and decrease the torque. Second, the effects of
different vectors on either stator flux or torque are different. For
instance, V25 , V24 , V17 , V6 , V14 , and V7 have a larger effect on
the flux amplitude, whereas V12 , V28 , V3 , and V19 have a smaller
effect, regardless of whether they will increase or decrease the
flux amplitude. In the case of torque, the situation is reversed.
V25 , V24 , V17 , V6 , V14 , and V7 have a smaller effect on torque,
whereas V12 , V28 , V3 , and V19 have a larger effect, regardless
of increasing or decreasing torque. Therefore, given a stator
flux position, whether the voltage vector selected previously
can have a “dominant” effect on the flux amplitude or the torque
can be known. For example, if V25 is selected according to
(8) and the stator flux is currently located in the first sector,
applying V25 has a larger effect on the flux amplitude than on
torque. In other words, the flux amplitude can be controlled more
effectively by applying V25 . In this sense, the flux amplitude
should be focused and it should be controlled with care. As a
result the flux-oriented equation (10) should be used to measure
the flux amplitude, based on which either the large, medium, or
small vector is further selected. By contrast, if V12 is selected
according to (8) and the stator flux is currently located in the first
flux. Then, the torque-oriented equation (9) should be used to
measure the torque, based on which, either the large, medium, or
small vector is further selected. The boundary ratios of Te : TN
or ψs :ψN to select the subvectors are 1:3 and 2:3, respectively.
If g2 is smaller than 1/3, the smallest vector is selected. If 1/3
5824 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 66, NO. 8, AUGUST 2019

≤ g2 ≤ 2/3, the medium vector will be chosen. Otherwise, the frame by

largest vector will be chosen. ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤−1 ⎡ ⎤
The complete selection process is outlined in the following: VA cos 0 cos 1a cos 2a cos 3a cos 4a Vα
⎢V ⎥ ⎢ sin 0 sin 1a sin 2a sin 3a sin 4a ⎥ ⎢V ⎥
1) select the initial voltage vector among ten voltage vectors ⎢ B⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ β⎥
⎢ ⎥ 5⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
by the MPC method; ⎢VC ⎥ = ⎢cos 0 cos 3a cos 6a cos 9a cos 12a⎥ ⎢Vxs ⎥ .
⎢ ⎥ 2⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
2) judge whether the vector has a large effect on the flux ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
linkage or the torque according to the stator flux position; ⎣VD ⎦ ⎣ sin 0 sin 3a sin 6a sin 9a sin 12a ⎦ ⎣Vy s ⎦
3) select the one from three embranchment vectors accord- VE 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Vz s
ing to the difference between the specified flux linkage (13)
or torque and the actual flux linkage or torque.
Because of the five-phase winding with the neutral point, the
This two-step selection method is known as QEM. Compared
stator current has no zero-sequence harmonic, i.e., iz = 0 [26].
with the method of evaluating all the possible switching states,
It can be seen from (13) that if the voltage in the xy plane is
QEM uses only a third of the time to obtain the optimal voltage
zero, the harmonic current in the xy subspace will be zero as
vector among 30 vectors. Therefore, this method can greatly
well. Since the voltage vector in the αβ plane for torque ripple
expand the range of vector selection and reduce the torque and
reduction has been obtained previously in QEM, it can now be
flux linkage ripple, improving the control performance of five-
revised by minimizing the harmonic components before it is
phase PMSMs significantly.
applied to control the five-phase PMSM.
The harmonic voltage in the five-phase machine can be cal-
B. Harmonic Voltage Elimination Method culated as follows:
⎡  ⎤ ⎡ ⎤−1 ⎡ ⎤
In this paper, the HVEM is applied after QEM. For the five- VA cos 0 cos 1a cos 2a cos 3a cos 4a 0
phase PMSM with sinusoidal winding distribution, the presence ⎢V  ⎥ ⎢ sin 0 sin 1a sin 2a sin 3a sin 4a ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ B⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
of low-order voltage harmonics in the xy subspace will lead to ⎢  ⎥ 5⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ V ⎥ = ⎢ cos 0 cos 3a cos 6a cos 9a cos 12a ⎥ ⎢ Vxs ⎥ .
huge harmonic currents in subspaces, distorting the stator cur- ⎢ C ⎥ 2⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢  ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
rent and increasing the copper loss. Also, only the fundamen- ⎣ VD ⎦ ⎣ sin 0 sin 3a sin 6a sin 9a sin 12a ⎦ ⎣ Vy s ⎦
tal component belonging to the dq plane will contribute posi- VE 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Vz s
tively to the output torque. Due to the decoupling characteristics (14)
between the dq subspace and the xy subspace, one of the so-
lutions to reduce the stator harmonic currents without affect- Consequently, the phase voltage after eliminating the har-
ing the torque performance is, therefore, to control the voltage monic voltage can be expressed as follows:
in the xy plane. ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡  ⎤
VA HVEM VA VA
The transformation from the αβ coordinate system to the dq ⎢V ⎥ ⎢V ⎥ ⎢V  ⎥
⎢ B HVEM ⎥ ⎢ B ⎥ ⎢ B ⎥
coordinate system can be obtained by the following: ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ VC HVEM ⎥ = ⎢ VC ⎥ − ⎢ V  ⎥ = 5
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ C⎥ 2
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
id cos θ sin θ 0 0 0 iα ⎣ VD HVEM ⎦ ⎣ VD ⎦ ⎣ VD ⎦
⎢ i ⎥ ⎢ − sin θ cos θ 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ i ⎥
⎢ q⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ β ⎥ VE HVEM VE VE
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ ix ⎥ = ⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ixs ⎥ . (11) ⎡ ⎤−1 ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ cos 0 cos 1a cos 2a cos 3a cos 4a Vα
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎣ iy ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 1 0 ⎦ ⎣ iy s ⎦ ⎢ sin 0 sin 1a sin 2a sin 3a sin 4a ⎥ ⎢V ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ β ⎥
iz 0 0 0 0 1 iz s ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ cos 0 cos 3a cos 6a cos 9a cos 12a ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥. (15)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
If the third harmonic current needs to be eliminated, let ix , iy , ⎣ sin 0 sin 3a sin 6a sin 9a sin 12a ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
and iz in (11) be equal to 0. Due to the decoupling characteristics 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0
in the rotating coordinate system, this will lead to Vx ,Vy , and
Vz in (12) all being zero as well. Finally, the obtained VA HVEM, VB HVEM, VC HVEM,
VD HVEM, and VE HVEM are, therefore, the voltages that can
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤ guarantee harmonic current elimination. By using this method,
Vα cos θ sin θ 0 0 0 Vd the harmonic voltage of the selected voltage vector can be con-
⎢ V ⎥ ⎢ − sin θ cos θ 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢V ⎥
⎢ β ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ q⎥ trolled and the current of the harmonic plane can be eliminated
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Vxs ⎥ = ⎢ 0 0 1 0 0⎥ ⎢ Vx ⎥ . (12) with the purpose of eliminating the harmonic current and, hence,
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ improving the stator current quality.
⎣ Vy s ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 1 0⎦ ⎣ Vy ⎦ After the voltage vector has been selected by QEM, the
Vz s 0 0 0 0 1 Vz HVEM process can be summarized as follows:
1) calculate the harmonic voltage [VA VB VC VD VE ]T ;
Now it can be derived from (12) that if Vx , Vy , and Vz are zero, 2) convert the selected voltage vector from QEM to the
Vxs , Vy s , and Vz s must be zero as well. After the voltage vector voltage expressed in the abcde coordinate system, i.e.,
is obtained from QEM, it is converted to the abcde reference [VA VB VC VD VE ]T ;
LI et al.: IMPROVED MPDTC STRATEGY FOR REDUCING HARMONIC CURRENTS AND TORQUE RIPPLES OF FIVE-PHASE PMSMS 5825

3) subtract [VA VB VC VD VE ]T from [VA VB VC VD VE ]T TABLE I

SYSTEM PARAMETERS
to obtain the final reference voltage in the abcde co-
ordinate system, i.e., [VA HVEM VB HVEM VC HVEM
VD HVEM VE HVEM ]T ;
4) send [VA HVEM VB HVEM VC HVEM VD HVEM
VE HVEM ]T as the input to the pulse generators.
Now let us recall the complete control scheme shown in Fig. 4.
It is emphasized that, after choosing Vopt−2 , the harmonic com-
ponents Vx and Vy can be deducted according to (15). After that,
the final voltage vector will be employed for pulse generation.

C. Delay Compensation
Because of the inherent one-step delay in the discrete time
digital implementation, the voltage vector decided by the
MPDTC controller cannot be applied instantaneously. In fact,
the commanding voltage at time k is applied to the inverter at V. NUMERICAL SIMULATION RESULTS
time (k + 1) [27], deteriorating the performance of the con- In this section, the numerical simulations are carried out in
troller. To address this issue, a delay compensation method is MATLAB/Simulink to compare the proposed and the conven-
necessary to improve the controller performance. The machine tional MPDTC methods. The motor and control parameters are
behavior at the next control period can be predicted as follows: listed in Table I.

Ts In this test, an external load of 5 N·m is applied and the speed
ikd +1 = ikd + ukd − Rs ikd + ωLq ikq
Ld of the PMSM is controlled at 1500 r/min. The performances of
 

Ts the conventional and the proposed MPDTC methods are shown
ikq +1 = ikq + ukq − Rs ikq − ω Ld ikd + ψm (16) in Fig. 5, where the waveforms from the top to the bottom are the
Lq
stator current, electromagnetic torque, selected voltage vectors,
where ikd +1 and ikq +1 are the d and q components of the predicted flux, and stator harmonic currents, respectively. It can be seen
stator current, respectively. To compensate the delay effect, a that the stator current is highly distorted and the torque presents
two-step prediction method is adopted as the following: large ripples when using the conventional MPDTC method. This
is because only the ten largest voltage vectors are evaluated

Ts
ikd +2 = ikd +1 + ukd +1 − Rs ikd +1 + ωLq ikq +1 and applied. The harmonic currents are, thus, not mitigated, as
Ld shown in Fig. 5(a).

Ts In contrast, by incorporating the HVEM scheme with the
ikq +2 = ikq +1 + ukq +1 − Rs ikq +1 − ω Ld ikd +1 + ψm . MPDTC algorithm, the harmonic currents in the xy subspace
Lq
(17)
Through the two-step prediction, the error caused by the con-
troller can be compensated such that the control performance
can be improved.
D. Pulse Generation
The voltage vector used in the MPC controller is constant over
a control period. However, a constant voltage vector is not suffi-
cient for the harmonic voltage cancellation method proposed in
this paper. Thus, a carrier-based pulsewidth modulation (PWM)
method is applied, and the zero-sequence injection PWM (ZSI-
PWM) method is used to increase the voltage utilization by
adopting the zero-sequence signals in a form similar to the one
used for three-phase voltage source inverters [28] as the follow-
ing:
1
Vn N (t) = (Vm ax + Vm in ) (18)
2 currents in the xy subspace of the proposed MPDTC, as shown
where Vm ax = max(Va , Vb , Vc , Vd , Ve ) and Vm in = min(Va ,
Vb , Vc , Vd , Ve ) . This method not only finds the fifth harmonic
but also additional 5kth (k = 1, 3, 5, . . . ) harmonics. Fortunately,
the harmonics can be eliminated because of the neutral connec-
tion. The modulation index is increased from 1.0 to 1.0515 [29].
are eliminated effectively. As a result, the stator currents be-
come more sinusoidal, which in turn leads to the reduced torque
ripples, as depicted in Fig. 5(b). The steady-state performance is
further improved in terms of stator currents and torque ripples by
incorporating both QEM and HVEM with the MPDTC strategy,
as demonstrated in Fig. 5(c). As discussed in Section IV, the
QEM is used to select the optimal voltage vector from among
30 possible switching patterns; and thus, the torque and flux are
better controlled. The flux in per unit is also shown in Fig. 5. It
can be seen that the traditional MPDTC leads to serious flux os-
cillations. This is the reason for large current harmonic content.
On the other hand, the flux ripple of MPDTC using HVEM and
QEM is mitigated considerably.
An in-depth comparison of different control methods is shown
in Fig. 6. From top to bottom, the curves are the voltage vectors,
three-dimensional stator currents in the dq and xy subspaces with
respect to time, and two-dimensional stator currents in the dq
and xy subspaces, respectively. It can be seen that the harmonic
in Fig. 6(b) and (c), are significantly reduced in comparison
with the results obtained by the conventional MPDTC shown
in Fig. 6(a). Moreover, the proposed MPDTC has better torque
performance than that of the conventional MPTC, which has
been demonstrated in Fig. 5.
5826 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 66, NO. 8, AUGUST 2019

Fig. 5. Steady-state performance of different MPDTC methods. (a) Traditional MPDTC. (b) MPDTC using HVEM. (c) MPDTC using HVEM and
QEM.

Fig. 7. Experimental setup.

Also, the currents in the αβ coordinate system of Fig. 6(c) is

Fig. 6. Number of voltage vectors and currents in the steady state.
(a) Traditional MPDTC. (b) MPDTC using HVEM. (c) MPDTC using
HVEM and QEMVI.
better than those of Fig. 6(b). This can be explained by the fact
that the combination of QEM and HVEM is more effective in
the suppression of stator harmonics in the xy subspace. Overall,
the voltage vector and the currents in the αβ coordinate system
shown in Fig. 6 indicate that the number of voltage vectors is
LI et al.: IMPROVED MPDTC STRATEGY FOR REDUCING HARMONIC CURRENTS AND TORQUE RIPPLES OF FIVE-PHASE PMSMS 5827

Fig. 8. Motor performance. (a) Conventional MPDTC. (b) MPDTC method using HVEM. (c) MPDTC method using HVEM and QEM (First row:
steady-state performance at 1500 r/min; second row: dynamic response from −1500 to 1500 r/min; third row: dynamic response from 1500 to
−1500 r/min).

increased, and the currents in the αβ coordinate system contain
fewer harmonics than that obtained by the traditional MPDTC.
VI. HIL TEST
To further validate the effectiveness of the proposed control
algorithm, a variety of hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) real-time
tests are carried out based on an RT-Lab OP5600 platform, as
shown in Fig. 7. The five-phase motor model is implemented
in the RT-Lab. The encoder is also simulated by OP5600. The
control algorithm is performed in a DSP 28335 controller board.
The motor phase currents and speed are measured using DSP’s
AD converters and a digital encoder, respectively. The machine
parameters are the same as those in the numerical simulation.
The sampling frequency is 10 kHz. Once again, the system
performances between the traditional MPDTC, the MPDTC us-
ing HVEM, and the MPDTC using both HVEM and QEM are
compared and discussed.
A. Steady-State Performance
The results of the conventional and proposed MPDTC
schemes for the five-phase PMSM in steady state are presented.
The rotor speed reference is set to 1500 r/min and the load
torque is 10 N·m. The waveforms in the first row of Fig. 8
present the comprehensive steady-state performance. From top
to bottom, the curves are the motor speed, output torque, and
stator currents in phases A and B, respectively. It can be clearly
seen that the speed can be controlled to the referenced value by
using all the methods. However, the proposed MPDTC methods
show much better steady-state performances than that obtained
by the traditional MPDTC method by exhibiting much lower
torque ripples and current harmonics. Specifically, the best per-
formance is achieved by the proposed MPDTC method with
both HVEM and QEM.
B. Dynamic Response
The dynamic response to a step change in the speed obtained
by the conventional and proposed MPDTC methods are eval-
uated in this section, as depicted in Fig. 8 (second and third
rows). It can be seen that the dynamic response of the pro-
posed MPDTC method with HVEM and the proposed MPDTC
method with both HVEM and QEM are very similar to that
of the traditional method. Nevertheless, the proposed MPDTC
methods present much lower torque ripples and current har-
monics. This confirms that the proposed MPDTC methods can
achieve better steady-state performance than the conventional
MPDTC without degrading the dynamic performance. Notice
that two cases are considered to test the dynamic response: The
motor speed reference steps from −1500 to 1500 r/min, i.e.,
5828 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 66, NO. 8, AUGUST 2019
Fig. 9. Phase current harmonic spectrum. (a) Conventional MPDTC. (b) MPDTC method using HVEM. (c) MPDTC method using HVEM and QEM.
TABLE II
STATISTICAL DATA OF COMPUTATIONAL BURDEN
the motor rotates backward to forward; another stepped change
occurs in the motor speed reference from 1500 to −1500 r/min,
i.e., the motor spins forward to backward. It can be observed
that it takes about 20 ms for the motor to reach the new steady
state in the first case, whereas the motor reaches the new steady
state within about 6 ms in the second case. The effectiveness
of the proposed MPDTC method in reducing the stator current
harmonics can be further confirmed by analyzing the stator cur-
rent spectra when the motor is stable at 1500 r/min. In Fig. 9, it
can be observed that the traditional MPDTC method produces a
broad stator current spectrum with large lower order harmonics.
As a result, the stator current is highly distorted with a total har-
monic distortion (THD) of up to 57%. In the case of using the
proposed MPDTC strategies, the stator current spectra show rel-
atively clearer features and the harmonic contents present much
smaller amplitudes, where the best performance is achieved by
using both HVEM and QEM, resulting in only 11.54% THD.
C. Comparison of Computational Burden
In order to better evaluate the complexity of each control
method, the calculation time used by the DSP to perform the
algorithms are summarized in Table II. A unit in time con-
sumption is defined as the time consumed by the DSP to exe-
cute the operation of λ1 |Te∗ − Te (k + 1)|. In the conventional
MPDTC method, there are 88 units (without considering the
time consumed in reading registers). The time consumption of
the proposed MPDTC method using HVEM is 73 units, and the
proposed MPDTC using HVEM and QEM is 83 units. From
the statistical data, it can be seen that based on MPDTC with
HVEM, only ten additional computing units are needed when in-
corporating the QEM scheme. Although the execution of QEM
for further voltage vector selection takes some time, the total
computation time, 83 units, is still shorter than 88 units of the
conventional MPDTC method.
D. Switching Frequency Comparison
Table III shows the comparison result of switching frequen-
cies between three methods. Under a 10 kHz sampling fre-
quency, the traditional MPDTC of five-phase PMSM results in
TABLE III
COMPARISON RESULTS OF SWITCHING FREQUENCY
about 7.25 kHz switching frequency, which is a variable fre-
quency. After adding HVEM and the associated PWM modula-
tion to the MPDTC, the switching frequency changes to 10 kHz,
which is a fixed frequency. Though the switching frequency of
the proposed method is increased, the harmonic currents and
torque ripples are reduced effectively without significantly in-
creasing the computational burden.
VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a new MPDTC strategy with QEM and HVEM
for five-phase PMSMs was proposed to reduce the harmonic cur-
rents and torque ripples. In QEM, the control scheme follows a
two-stage process to identify the optimal voltage vector among
30 possible switching states without significantly increasing the
computational burden. Furthermore in HVEM, by eliminating
the harmonic components from the voltage vector determined
from QEM, the final voltage vector is obtained to control the
motor with improved stator current quality. The effectiveness
of the proposed control strategy in comparison with the tradi-
tional method is well confirmed by the results of both numerical
simulation and RT-Lab test.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Parsa and H. A. Toliyat, “Sensorless direct torque control of five-phase
interior permanent-magnet motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 43,
no. 4, pp. 952–959, Jul./Aug. 2007.
[2] L. Parsa and H. A. Toliyat, “Five-phase permanent-magnet motor drives,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 30–37, Jan./Feb. 2005.
[3] F. Wu and J. Zhao, “A real-time multiple open-circuit fault diagnosis
method in voltage-source-inverter fed vector controlled drives,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1425–1437, Feb. 2016.
LI et al.: IMPROVED MPDTC STRATEGY FOR REDUCING HARMONIC CURRENTS AND TORQUE RIPPLES OF FIVE-PHASE PMSMS
[4] H. Chen, X. Liu, J. Zhao, and N. A. O. Demerdash, “Magnetic coupling
characteristics investigation of a dual-rotor fault-tolerant PMSM,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 362–372, Mar. 2018.
[5] S. Souza and W. I. Suemitsu, “Five-phase permanent-magnet synchronous
motor,” IEEE Latin Amer. Trans., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 639–645, Apr. 2017.
[6] S. Sadeghi, L. Guo, H. A. Toliyat, and L. Parsa, “Wide operational speed
range of five-phase permanent magnet machines by using different sta-
tor winding configurations,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 6,
pp. 2621–2631, Jun. 2012.
[7] M. Trabelsi, N. K. Nguyen, and E. Semail, “Real-time switches fault diag-
nosis based on typical operating characteristics of five-phase permanent-
magnetic synchronous machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63,
no. 8, pp. 4683–4694, Aug. 2016.
[8] N. Nguyen, F. Meinguet, E. Semail, and X. Kestelyn, “Fault-tolerant
operation of an open-end winding five-phase PMSM drive with short-
circuit inverter fault,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 595–
605, Jan. 2016.
[9] K. D. Hoang, Y. Ren, Z.-Q. Zhu, and M. Foster, “Modified switching-table
strategy for reduction of current harmonics in direct torque controlled dual-
three-phase permanent magnet synchronous machine drives,” IET Elect.
Power Appl., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 10–19, 2014.
[10] M. J. Duran and F. Barrero, “Recent advances in the design, modeling,
and control of multiphase machines—Part II,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 459–468, Jan. 2016.
[11] F. Barrero and M. J. Duran, “Recent advances in the design, modeling,
and control of multiphase machines—Part I,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 449–458, Jan. 2016.
[12] I. Gonzalez-Prieto, M. J. Duran, J. J. Aciego, C. Martin, and F. Barrero,
“Model predictive control of six-phase induction motor drives using virtual
voltage vectors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 27–37,
Jan. 2018.
[13] R. Gregor et al., “Predictive-space vector PWM current control method for
asymmetrical dual three-phase induction motor drives,” IET Elect. Power
Appl., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 26–34, 2010.
[14] M. J. Duran, J. Prieto, F. Barrero, and S. Toral, “Predictive current control
of dual three-phase drives using restrained search techniques,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 3253–3263, Aug. 2011.
[15] M. J. Durán, F. Barrero, J. Prieto, and S. Toral, “Predictive current control
of dual three-phase drives using restrained search techniques and multi
level voltage source inverters,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Ind. Electron.,
2010, pp. 3171–3176.
[16] F. Barrero, M. R. Arahal, R. Gregor, S. Toral, and M. J. Durán, “One-step
modulation predictive current control method for the asymmetrical dual
three-phase induction machine,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6,
pp. 1974–1983, Jun. 2009.
[17] F. Barrero, M. R. Arahal, R. Gregor, S. Toral, and M. J. Durán, “A proof of
concept study of predictive current control for VSI-driven asymmetrical
dual three-phase AC machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6,
pp. 1937–1954, Jun. 2009.
[18] A. Lewicki, P. Strankowski, M. Morawiec, and J. Guziński, “Optimized
space vector modulation strategy for five phase voltage source inverter
with third harmonic injection,” in Proc. 19th Eur. Conf. Power Electron.
Appl., 2017, pp. P.1–P.10.
[19] L. Zhu, F. Bu, W. Huang, and T. Pu, “Analysis and performance of two
dual random SVPWM for five-phase inverter,” in Proc. 20th Int. Conf.
Elect. Mach. Syst., 2017, pp. 1–4.
[20] C. Xue, W. Song, and X. Feng, “Finite control-set model predictive current
control of five-phase permanent-magnet synchronous machine based on
virtual voltage vectors,” IET Elect. Power Appl., vol. 11, pp. 836–846,
2017.
[21] X. Cheng, S. Wensheng, and F. Xiaoyun, “Model predictive current control
schemes for five-phase permanent-magnet synchronous machine based on
SVPWM,” in Proc. IEEE 8th Int. Power Electron. Motion Control Conf.,
2016, pp. 648–653.
[22] G. Hongwei, S. Jianyong, Y. Guijie, and L. Jian, “SVPWM equivalent
algorithm based on carrier for five-phase voltage source inverter,” in Proc.
7th Int. Power Electron. Motion Control Conf., vol. 1, 2012, pp. 758–762.
[23] Y. Fei, Z. Anzhou, and X. Dong, “A novel five-phase SVPWM base on
the feature harmonics space voltage vectors injecting,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Elect. Mach. Syst., 2013, pp. 680–684.
[24] Y. N. Tatte and M. V. Aware, “Direct torque control of five-phase induc-
tion motor with common-mode voltage and current harmonics reduction,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 8644–8654, Nov. 2017.
[25] M. Arahal, F. Barrero, S. Toral, M. Duran, and R. Gregor, “Multi-phase
current control using finite-state model-predictive control,” Control Eng.
Pract., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 579–587, 2009.
5829
[26] M. J. Durán, J. Prieto, and F. Barrero, “Space vector PWM With reduced
common-mode voltage for five-phase induction motor drives operating
in overmodulation zone,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 8,
pp. 4030–4040, Aug. 2013.
[27] P. Cortés, G. Ortiz, J. I. Yuz, J. Rodrı́guez, S. Vazquez, and L. G. Franquelo,
“Model predictive control of an inverter with output LC filter for UPS
applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1875–1883,
Jun. 2009.
[28] A. Iqbal and S. Moinuddin, “Comprehensive relationship between carrier-
based PWM and space vector PWM in a five-phase VSI,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 2379–2390, Oct. 2009.
[29] H. A. Toliyat, “Analysis and simulation of five-phase variable-speed induc-
tion motor drives under asymmetrical connections,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 748–756, Jul. 1998.
Guibin Li received the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering from Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China, and Xinjiang University, Ürümqi, China,
as a Joint Training Doctoral student, in 2018.
He is currently an RA with Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. His current
research interests include model predictive con-
trol multiphase motor control, permanent mag-
net synchronous motors control, and the control
of high-voltage high-power converters.
Jiefeng Hu (S’12–M’14–SM’16) received the
Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the
University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW,
Australia, in 2013.
From 2011 to 2013, he was involved with
the research on minigrids in Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organization,
Newcastle, NSW, Australia. He is currently an
Assistant Professor with Hong Kong Polytech-
nic University, Hong Kong. He was the Session
Chair for several international conferences. His
research interests include power electronics, renewable energy, and
smart microgrids.
Yongdong Li received the B.S. degree from the
Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, in
1982, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Institut
National Polytechnique de Toulouse, Toulouse,
France, in 1984 and 1987, respectively, all in
electrical engineering.
Since 1996, he has been a Professor
with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. His cur-
rent research interests include power electron-
ics, machine control, and wind power generation.
Jianguo Zhu (S’93–M’96–SM’03) received the
B.E. degree from the Jiangsu Institute of Tech-
nology, Jiangsu, China, in 1982, the M.E.
degree from the Shanghai University of Tech-
nology, Shanghai, China, in 1987, and the Ph.D.
degree from the University of Technology Syd-
ney (UTS), Sydney, NSW, Australia, in 1995, all
in electrical engineering.
He was appointed as a Lecturer with UTS in
1994 and promoted to a Full Professor in 2004
and a Distinguished Professor in electrical engi-
neering in 2017. In 2018, he joined the University of Sydney, Sydney,
NSW, Australia, as a Full Professor and the Head of the School of Elec-
trical and Information Engineering. His research interests include com-
putational electromagnetics, measurement and modeling of magnetic
properties of materials, electrical machines and drives, power electron-
ics, renewable energy systems, and smart microgrids.