Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Parameter Free
Parameter Free
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2949222, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 1
2168-6777 (c) 2019 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2949222, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 2
of the FCS predictive torque control against parameter interval as an optimum choice.
variations [21]. The latter method evaluates a cost function for
B. Problem of Parameter Mismatch
only three inverter voltage vectors instead of seven. However,
it needs an estimation of flux linkage, which is prone to the As mentioned before, for a two-step prediction approach,
effects of variation of winding resistance. the model equations of (1) and (2) are used twice in each
In this paper, a parameter-free FCS-PCC is proposed for sampling period. Hence, if the model is not accurate enough,
IPM motor drives. The predicted slopes of current vector there will be degradation in the control performance of the
components are used in the predictions and voltage vector machine. This is studied in this subsection.
selection. The motor parameters are not included in the It is well-known that an IPM motor is a highly nonlinear
predictions. The proposed method does not adopt look-up system. The iron saturation and cross-saturation may affect the
tables for inverter switching configurations. Hence, it does not model parameters. To include these effects to the model, a
face the stagnation problem. Furthermore, evaluations of a non-linear form of stator flux linkage is given as [24]:
cost function are avoided by using a direct selection of
optimum inverter voltage vectors. For doing so, a reference d ( id , iq ) = Ld ( id , iq ) id + m , (5)
q ( id , iq ) = Lq ( id , iq ) iq ,
voltage vector is calculated independent of the motor
(6)
parameters. The results ensure the performance superiority of
the method over the conventional and a model-free predictive
where the apparent inductances may vary due to the saturation
current control method [16].
and cross-saturation effect. Temperature rise and load
condition may lead to variation of winding resistance and
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
permanent magnet flux. Under the parameters variation, the
A. Conventional Model Predictive Current Control slopes of current components are expressed as:
Time-derivatives (slopes) of stator current vector
components of an interior permanent magnet synchronous
=
(
did v d − ( Rs 0 + Rs ) id + r Lq 0 + Lq ( id , iq ) iq
,
) (7)
ld 0 + ld ( id , iq )
motor in the rotor flux reference frame are expressed as [22]:
dt
did
=
1
(v d + r Lq iq − Rs id ) , (1) diq
=
(
v q − ( Rs 0 + Rs ) iq − r Ld 0 + Lq ( id , iq ) iq )
lq 0 + lq ( id , iq )
dt Ld dt (8)
diq
= (v q − r m − r Ld id − Rs iq ) , ( )
1
(2) − r ( m 0 + m ) / lq 0 + lq ( id , iq ) ,
dt Lq
where, the conventional notations are used. In a conventional where “ ” subscribe denotes variation of a parameter from its
FCS-PCC, the linear model of the motor is used, and the model value designated by subscribe “0”. Besides,
effects of iron saturation or parameter variations are not ld = ld 0 + ld and lq = lq 0 + lq are differential inductances
included in the control [23]. The current components of which are derived from differentiating (5) and (6) as:
[k+1]th sampling instance should be predicted using the
measured currents of [k]th sampling instance and their lx = x ( id , iq ) i x , x d , q . (9)
predicted variations provided by the applied inverter voltage
vector in the [k]th control period as: The cross-differential inductances are ignored due to their
negligible effect on the performance of FCS-MPC. The
iˆx k + 1 = i x k + iˆx k , x d , q , (3) calculated current slopes by considering the variations of the
parameters, as in (7) and (8) are denoted by Sd and S q
where iˆx k is the predicted variation of a current respectively, while the slopes without considering variations
component. It is calculated using the discrete forms of (1) and of parameters are denoted by Sd 0 and Sq 0 . The error
(2) over one sampling period. This prediction is necessary for introduced in the slope of a current vector component due to
compensating the one-step delay of the digital processor. The the parametric uncertainties could be defined as:
current components should also be predicted for [k+2]th
sampling instance for all switching states using one-step ahead
time-shifted form of (3). These predicted values are evaluated
Sx = Sx − S x 0 = k1x v x + k 2x , x d , q , (10)
in a cost function which is commonly defined as:
where S x is the error of the slope of a current component.
The terms k1x and k 2x are the voltage-independent terms of
CFn = id* − iˆd k + 2n + iq* − iˆq k + 2n , n V 0 ~ V6 , (4)
S x . In FCS-MPC only one of the basic voltage vectors of
where the command values are expressed using a star the inverter with a magnitude of V m = 2V dc / 3 is applied to the
superscript. The voltage vector that minimizes the cost motor over one sampling period (except for the null voltage
function is applied to the motor during the [k+1]th sampling
2168-6777 (c) 2019 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2949222, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 3
2168-6777 (c) 2019 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2949222, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 4
4
Sd (is = inom ) Sd ( No-load )
1 and 3 are dependent on the motor parameters, and the DC
Current slope
Sq (is = inom ) Sq ( No-load )
2
(kA/s)
link voltage. Therefore, their variations are slow and
negligible during a couple of short sampling periods (e.g. 0
ix[k+1]
V k − 2 V k − 1 V k V k + 1
ix[k+2]
ix[k-2]
ix[k-1]
ix[k]
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the curves are almost k − 2 k − 1 k k + 1
constant during 2~3 sampling intervals. The data of two points
from each curve is enough for estimation of the curve for a Fig. 3. A time sequence diagram of the proposed FCS-PCC method.
whole range of voltage phase angle ( 0 360 ). In other
words, the coefficients 1 ~ 4 can be estimated by using the reference slopes using (3) and (13). The reference slopes along
stored values of the current slopes of [k-1]th and [k-2]th with Sˆx k + 1 are used in the cost function calculations of
sampling intervals and their corresponding voltage vectors as: (14).
B. Voltage Selection
Sd k − 1 − Sd k − 2
ˆ1 = , (17) In order to eliminate the need for evaluation of a cost
cos k − 1 − cos k − 2
function, S x* can be useful for generating a reference voltage
vector ( v * = v * * ) for the [k+1]th sampling interval. If
ˆ2 = Sd k − 1 − ˆ1 cos k − 1 , (18) this reference voltage could be applied at the beginning of the
sampling interval, the current would reach its command at the
end of the interval. To calculate the magnitude and the phase
Sq k − 1 − Sq k − 2 angle of the reference voltage vector, one can use (15) and
ˆ3 = , (19)
sin k − 1 − sin k − 2 (16) as:
2168-6777 (c) 2019 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2949222, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 5
fig
iq* Sq*
r* +_ PI +
_ 1/Ts Voltage
Switching
commands
v2 Sd* vector
v3 v* id* +
_
1/Ts
selection
ˆ1 ~ ˆ4
v0 v1
v4 *
iˆq [k + 1] Estimations
+ _ ia
Z -1
id dq
and 1/Ts
iˆd [k + 1] S _ ib
predictions d 1/Ts Z -1 abc
r Sq + ic
v5 v6 r iq
r
d/dt
1.5
1
0.5
ia (A)
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 7. Simulation results of steady-state phase currents. (a) Conventional PCC. (b) Existing model-free PCC. (c) Proposed PCC.
2168-6777 (c) 2019 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2949222, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 6
1.5
Current (A) 1
iq iq iq
0.5
0 id id id
-0.5
ia (A)
1
applying non-optimum voltage vectors for preventing the 0
voltage stagnation problem results in current waveform -1
degradation under the existing model-free method. The same
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
conclusion can be obtained from the dq components of current Time (s)
vector waveforms as shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 9. The phase current of the motor under 50% varied values of
The drive performance under the parameter mismatch is motor inductances (conventional vs. proposed PCC methods).
also investigated. The motor operates at 500 rpm with a 1 Nm
load. The phase current waveform under a 50% variation of
1 Conventional PCC Proposed PCC
the motor inductances is given in Fig. 9. Degradation of the
Current (A)
0.5
performance under the conventional PCC can be seen.
iq (A)
However, it is improved when the proposed method takes over 0 id (A)
the control at t=0.3 s. In addition, Fig. 10 shows the dq- -0.5
components of the current. It is seen that the current 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
components enjoy fewer ripples under the proposed PCC Time (s)
2168-6777 (c) 2019 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2949222, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 7
0.1
50% error in inductances
0.05 65% error in inductances
0
Proposed PCC 2 (A/Div.)
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
(a)
0.4
0.3 Fig. 13. Steady-state waveforms of the phase current under the
id prediction error (A)
0.2 conventional and the proposed PCC methods with 100% error in the
0.1
motor inductances values.
0
-0.1
0.5 Conventional PCC Proposed PCC 1.4
-0.2 0.3 1.2
iq (A)
id (A)
0.1 1
-0.3
-0.1 id iq 0.8
-0.4 -0.3 0.6
Conventional PCC Proposed PCC -0.5 0.4
(b) -0.7 0.2
Fig. 11. The prediction errors of [k+1]th sampling instance for the 0.15 0.3 0.45
current components; (a) d-axis current, (b) q-axis current. Time (s)
Speed (2000 rpm/Div.) Speed reference Fig. 14. Steady-state waveforms of the d- and q-axis components of the
motor current under 100% error in the motor inductances values.
Torque (5 Nm/Div.)
Conventional PCC Proposed PCC
Fig. 15. Prediction errors of the d- and q-axis components of the motor
Fig. 12. Speed reversal test of the motor drive.
current under 100% error in the motor inductances values.
of the drive performance. The proposed predictive current stagnation of voltage vectors is resolved without degrading the
control method is totally robust against variations of the drive performance.
parameters. Unlike existing model-free methods, the proposed
method does not need look-up tables for storing the current ACKNOWLEDGMENT
variations provided by all inverter voltage vectors. Hence, it The effective cooperation of Dr. M. R. Nikzad in
does not face the stagnation of data-updating, which is a developing the experimental setup is appreciated.
drawback of the existing model-free control methods. In the
proposed method, the time-derivatives (slopes) of current APPENDIX
vector components are predicted using the data of the current
variations of two most recent sampling intervals and their
corresponding voltage vectors. Moreover, using the predicted 1 =V m / ( l d 0 + l d ) , (A1)
current slopes, a direct optimum voltage vector selection
method is used in order to eliminate the need for cost function
evaluations. This leads to a reduction of the computational
2 =
( )
r iq L q 0 + L q ( id , iq ) − ( Rs 0 + Rs ) id
, (A2)
effort. The effectiveness of the proposed method is evaluated l d 0 + l d
by computer simulation and experimental tests. The results
show an improved performance under the parameter mismatch
3 =V m / ( l q 0 + l q ) ,
between the motor and the controller compared to the (A3)
conventional predictive current control method. In addition,
compared to the existing model-free methods, the problem of
2168-6777 (c) 2019 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.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2949222, IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 8
(
r ( m 0 + m ) + r id ld 0 + ld ( id , iq ) )
2017, pp. 119-124: IEEE.
[18] M. Siami, D. A. Khaburi, A. Abbaszadeh, and J. Rodríguez,
4 = − "Robustness improvement of predictive current control using prediction
l q 0 + l q (A4) error correction for permanent-magnet synchronous machines," IEEE
( ) (
− iq R s 0 + Rs / l q 0 + l q . ) [19]
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 3458-3466, 2016.
M. Siami, D. A. Khaburi, and J. Rodríguez, "Torque ripple reduction of
predictive torque control for PMSM drives with parameter mismatch,"
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 7160-7168, 2017.
[20] S. Vaez-Zadeh, "Analysis of a DTC with back EMF oriented voltage
REFERENCES for PMS motor drives," IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 33, no. 3,
[1] P. Cortés, M. P. Kazmierkowski, R. M. Kennel, D. E. Quevedo, and J. pp. 1594-1596, Sept. 2018.
Rodríguez, "Predictive control in power electronics and drives," IEEE [21] M. Khalilzadeh and S. Vaez-Zadeh, "Computation efficiency and
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4312-4324, 2008. robustness improvement of predictive control for PMS motors," IEEE
[2] Z. Ma, S. Saeidi, and R. Kennel, "FPGA Implementation of model J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., 2019.
predictive control with constant switching frequency for PMSM [22] S. Vaez-Zadeh, Control of permanent magnet synchronous motors.
drives," IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 2055-2063, London, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2018.
2014. [23] J. Rodriguez and P. Cortes, Predictive control of power converters and
[3] F. Morel, X. Lin-Shi, J. M. Retif, B. Allard, and C. Buttay, "A electrical drives. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
comparative study of predictive current control schemes for a [24] N. Bianchi and S. Bolognani, "Magnetic models of saturated interior
permanent-magnet synchronous machine drive," IEEE Trans. Ind. permanent magnet motors based on finite element analysis," in
Electron., vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 2715-2728, 2009. Conference Record of 1998 IEEE Industry Applications Conference.
[4] A. D. Alexandrou, N. K. Adamopoulos, and A. G. Kladas, Thirty-Third IAS Annual Meeting (Cat. No. 98CH36242), 1998, vol. 1,
"Development of a constant switching frequency deadbeat predictive pp. 27-34: IEEE.
control technique for field-oriented synchronous permanent-magnet [25] J. Stumper, S. Kuehl, and R. Kennel, "Predictive torque control for AC
motor drive," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 5167-5175, drives: Improvement of parametric robustness using two-degree-of-
2016. freedom control," 2013 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and
[5] X. Zhang, B. Hou, and Y. Mei, "Deadbeat predictive current control of Exposition, 2013, pp. 1170-1175.
permanent-magnet synchronous motors with stator current and
disturbance observer," IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32, no. 5, pp.
3818-3834, 2017.
[6] B. H. Kenny and R. D. Lorenz, "Stator- and rotor-flux-based deadbeat Mohammad Khalilzadeh was born in
direct torque control of induction machines," IEEE Transactions on
Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1093-1101, 2003. Urmia, Iran in 1990. He received his M.Sc.
[7] M. Khalilzadeh and S. Vaez-Zadeh, "Deadbeat current control of and B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from K.
permanent magnet synchronous motors using a simplified discrete N. Toosi University of Technology and the
space vector modulation," Power Electronics, Drives Systems and University of Tehran, in 2012 and 2014
Technologies Conference (PEDSTC), 2018 9th Annual, 2018, pp. 456-
461: IEEE. respectively. He is currently working toward
[8] J. Rodriguez et al., "Predictive current control of a voltage source the Ph.D. degree at the University of Tehran. His research
inverter," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 495-503, 2007. interests include power electronics and motor drives.
[9] M. Preindl and S. Bolognani, "Model predictive direct torque control
with finite control set for PMSM drive systems, Part 1: maximum
torque per ampere operation," IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 9, no. 4,
pp. 1912-1921, 2013.
[10] M. Navardi, J. Milimonfared, and H. Talebi, "Torque and flux ripples Sadegh Vaez-Zadeh (S’95‒A’03‒SM’05)
minimization of permanent magnet synchronous motor by a predictive- has been a Full Professor at the University
based hybrid direct torque control," IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power of Tehran, since 2005. He has co-authored
Electron., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1662-1670, Dec. 2018. more than 200 technical papers and
[11] P. G. Carlet, F. Tinazzi, S. Bolognani, and M. Zigliotto, "An effective
model-free predictive current control for synchronous reluctance motor authored Control of Permanent Magnet
drives," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., pp. 1-1, 2019. Synchronous Motors, Oxford University
[12] M. Abdelrahem, C. Hackl, Z. Zhang, and R. Kennel, "Robust predictive Press, 2018. He is an Editor of the IEEE
control for direct-driven surface-mounted permanent-magnet Transactions on Energy Conversion and a Subject Editor of
synchronous generators without mechanical sensors," IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 179-189, March 2018. the IET Renewable Power Generation.
[13] B. Wang, X. Chen, Y. Yu, G. Wang, and D. Xu, "Robust predictive
current control with online disturbance estimation for induction
machine drives," IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. Mohammadsadegh Eslahi received the
4663-4674, 2017.
[14] H. A. Young, M. A. Perez, and J. Rodriguez, "Analysis of finite- B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from
control-set model predictive current control with model parameter the University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran, 2015,
mismatch in a three-phase inverter," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. and the M.Sc. degree in electrical
63, no. 5, pp. 3100-3107, 2016. engineering from the K. N. Toosi
[15] C.-K. Lin, T.-H. Liu, L.-C. Fu, and C.-F. Hsiao, "Model-free predictive
current control for interior permanent-magnet synchronous motor University of Technology, Tehran, Iran,
drives based on current difference detection technique," IEEE trans. 2017. He is currently with Advanced
Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 667-681, 2014. Motion Systems Research Laboratory of University of Tehran,
[16] C.-K. Lin, Y.-S. Lai, and H.-C. Yu, "Improved model-free predictive Tehran, Iran.
current control for synchronous reluctance motor drives," IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 3942-3953, 2016.
[17] D. Da Rù, M. Polato, and S. Bolognani, "Model-free predictive current
control for a SynRM drive based on an effective update of measured
current responses," Predictive Control of Electrical Drives and Power
2168-6777 (c) 2019 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.