9024 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO.
10, OCTOBER 2021
Smart Voltage Vectors for Model Predictive
Control of Six-Phase Electric Drives
Angel González-Prieto, Ignacio González-Prieto , and Mario J. Duran , Member, IEEE
Abstract—Model predictive control (MPC) has been re-
cently in the limelight within the field of multiphase ma-
chines and drives because it can naturally exploit some
of their inherent advantages. Unfortunately, the phase cur-
rent quality provided by standard MPC is unacceptable
when the values of the stator resistance and leakage induc-
tance are low. Aiming to overcome this disadvantage, differ-
ent MPC strategies using synthetic/virtual voltage vectors
(VVs) have been developed. Nevertheless, static VVs are
created offline, and consequently, they cannot be adapted
to the operating point. This limitation has been recently
mitigated with the creation of dynamic virtual voltage vec-
tors (DVVs), where VVs are generated online combining two
different switching states per sampling time. Despite the
current quality improvement using DVVs, the refinement of
the voltage output is still limited, and consequently, the so-
lution is suboptimal. This article suggests the use of smart
voltage vectors (SVVs) that are obtained by composing the
three best voltage vectors in a smart proportion during the
sampling period. The calculation of the duties is performed
with an online smart search that allows the real-time im-
plementation of this MPC version. The capability of the
proposed SVV-MPC to enhance the current quality indices
is validated with experimental results.
Index Terms—Model predictive control (MPC), multi-
phase drives, smart voltage vectors (SVVs).
I. INTRODUCTION
ULTIPHASE machines are currently an industrial so-
M lution for applications with high-performance require-
ments [1]. Their inherent advantages over the conventional
three-phase machines, together with the evolution of power
electronics and digital signal processors, have promoted the
study and implementation of variable-speed multiphase electric
drives. From the industrial point of view, the most desirable
features of multiphase machines are their higher efficiency and
reliability [2], [3]. Additionally, the innovative use of the new
degrees of freedom offers a group of exclusive modes of opera-
tion for specific industrial applications [4]–[7]. Nevertheless, the
Manuscript received February 27, 2020; revised May 27, 2020, July
8, 2020, and September 2, 2020; accepted September 21, 2020. Date
of publication October 9, 2020; date of current version June 28, 2021.
This work was supported by the Spanish Government under the Plan
Estatal 2017–2020 under Grant RTI2018-096151-B-I00. (Correspond-
ing author: Ignacio González-Prieto.)
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Uni-
versity of Malaga, 29016 Málaga, Spain (e-mail: anggonpri@gmail.com;
ignaciogp87@gmail.com; mjduran@uma.es).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available
online at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2020.3028812
0278-0046 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
exploitation of the different advantages needs to be mandatorily
accompanied by a high-performance control technique that pro-
vides good current quality, fast dynamic response, and control
flexibility.
In this scenario, the model predictive control (MPC) has
emerged as a regulation strategy with the capability of includ-
ing new restrictions in a straightforward manner, providing at
the same time a fast-transient response [8]–[12]. On the other
hand, it is well-known in the field of multiphase electric drives
that standard MPC shows an unacceptable current harmonic
distortion either when the values of the stator resistance and
leakage inductance are low or when the sampling time is high
[13]. This limitation of standard MPC is caused by the sole
application of one switching state during the whole sampling
period [14]. A single voltage vector (VV) cannot simultaneously
satisfy the requirements of two orthogonal subspaces (α-β and
x-y planes), therefore, a good torque/flux regulation can only
be achieved with high stator copper losses due to the currents
of the secondary subspace. This fact is typically regarded as the
main disadvantage of MPC strategies. However, the origin of
the current distortion is not the predictive approach itself but the
selection of a single VV.
In the light of this limitation, a group of recent works has
suggested the utilization of synthetic/virtual VVs to better regu-
late the x-y currents [13]–[16], [18]–[25]. In essence, VVs are a
combination of several switching states to satisfy the α-β current
tracking with limited x-y currents. The most extended version
of VVs is based on the use of two active VVs that provide
null average x-y voltages within the sampling period [13]–[16],
[20]–[23]. Although this solution was first implemented in a
direct torque control scheme [22], [23], it was soon adapted
to MPC strategies, proving to enhance the steady-state perfor-
mance [13]–[20]. Regardless of the employed control scheme,
VVs have generally been created offline following these two
stages.
1) Selection of VVs with opposite directions in the x-y
plane.
2) Calculation of the application times of each VV to provide
a null average value of the x-y voltages.
In the case of asymmetrical six-phase induction machines
(IMs), the standard solution is the use of VVs formed by
medium-large and large VVs in such a proportion that the aver-
age x-y voltages are zero [14], [16], [19], [23]. The regulation
of the x-y currents is kept in the open-loop mode with the use
of VVs, and therefore, reduced models and cost functions can
be employed [14]. Since the selection of the switching states
 GONZÁLEZ-PRIETO et al.: SMART VOLTAGE VECTORS FOR MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF SIX-PHASE ELECTRIC DRIVES 9025

and duties is performed offline, it is not possible to adapt neither

the VVs nor their times of application according to the drive
operating point. From this perspective, VVs have a static nature
and this lack of flexibility leads to the suboptimal performance.
Following the idea of including VVs into MPC, different
works have extended this approach to electric drives with five
[16]–[18], six [14], [15], [19]–[21], [24], [25], and nine [13]
phases, either using one VV or a combination of several VVs
[16], [17], [24], [25]. For the sake of example, two VVs are used
in [24] for a six-phase induction motor drive, the combination
of an active VV plus a zero vector is suggested in [16] for a
five-phase inverter, or the use of one active VV and a zero vector
for each subspace is explored in [17] for a five-phase machine Fig. 1. Asymmetrical six-phase IM fed by a dual three-phase two-level
with nonsinusoidal back electromotive force. Nevertheless, the VSC.
static approach for the creation of the VVs was maintained in all
cases regardless of the number of phases or VVs. In other words,
the creation of VVs has always been done using the same VVs online smart search to determine the times of application in
and fixed times of application. order to provide a minimal control error. The SVVs are then
Specifically, in the six-phase drives, all previous works sug- created with the online selected VVs and the variable duties,
gested VVs created from medium-large and large VVs that finally providing the control action that better suits the control
are applied during 27% and 73% of the sampling period, re- aims at each operating point.
spectively. Unfortunately, this fixed proportion leads to an un- The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section II de-
derutilization of the dc-link voltage, higher instantaneous x-y scribes some generalities of six-phase IM drives and Section III
voltages, and the incapability of adapting the voltage states to develops the proposed MPC based on SVVs. Section IV shows
the operating point of the drive [16], [17], [24]. the experimental results that validate the goodness of SVV-MPC
Aiming to overcome these deficiencies and provide MPC and, finally, Section V concludes this article.
with a higher flexibility, the use of dynamic virtual voltage
vectors (DVVs) has been recently proposed in [26]. DVVs are II. SIX-PHASE INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVES
obtained online selecting the best couple of VVs and determin-
ing their times of application. In contrast to the static VVs, The electric machine under study is an asymmetrical six-
with the dynamic approach, both the selected VVs and the phase IM with distributed windings. The IM is composed of two
times of application are variable. Consequently, while VVs are sets of three-phase windings spatially shifted 30° and connected
discrete points in the α-β plane, the available DVVs can move to two isolated neutral points. A dual three-phase two-level
tangentially (when two active vectors are selected) or radially voltage source converter (VSC) supplies the IM, as shown in
(when an active vector plus a zero vector are selected) by simply Fig. 1. In this topology, the VSC possesses 26 = 64 switching
changing the duties. Thanks to this flexibility, DVV-MPC proved states, which can be expressed using a vector [S] formed by the
to outperform VV-MPC providing a significant improvement of switching states of each VSC leg Sij . Since the VSC provides the
the current quality in the steady-state condition. Unfortunately, voltage for the IM, it is common to determine the available phase
the utilization of just two vectors in DVV-MPC only allows voltages as a function of the dc-link voltage Vdc and the different
moving either radially or tangentially in the α-β plane, hence switching states [24]. On the other hand, the phase voltages
the refinement of its voltage production is limited because the are usually transformed into a stationary reference frame where
voltage output cannot cover the whole achievable area. phase variables are expressed in two orthogonal subspaces plus
This work suggests mitigating these limitations using an MPC two zero sequence components
⎡ √ √ ⎤
strategy that applies VVs formed by three VVs, whose duties 1 √
−1/2 −1/2 √ 3/2 − 3/2 0
time are calculated with an online smart search (termed smart ⎢0 3/2 − 3/2 √ 1/2 √1/2 −1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
voltage vector (SVV)-MPC in what follows). The inclusion ⎢
1 1 −1/2 −1/2 − 3/2 3/2 0 ⎥
[T ] = ⎢ √ √ ⎥
of a third vector in the creation of the SVVs implies that the 3⎢⎢ 0 − 3/2 3/2 1/2 1/2 −1 ⎥ ⎥
SVVs can simultaneously move radially and tangentially, hence ⎣1 1 1 0 0 0 ⎦
achieving any voltage in the α-β plane in a continuous manner. 0 0 0 1 1 1
In simple words, the available α-β voltages are discrete points 
in VV-MPC, lines in DVV-MPC, and cover the whole surface × vαs vβs vxs vys v0+ v0−
in the proposed SVV-MPC. It is then expected that the higher 
= [T ] va1 vb1 vc1 va2 vb2 vc2 . (1)
refinement of SVV-MPC will enhance the current quality com-
pared with previous strategies. At the same time, the real-time This article assumes that in this vector space decomposition
implementation is more challenging because it is necessary to (VSD), the α-β subspace is related to the flux/torque production,
simultaneously set the three duties. Since the exhaustive search whereas the x-y subspace only produces stator copper losses
from [26] can no longer be used, it is necessary to make an in distributed-winding machines. Using the amplitude-invariant

thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
 9026 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2021

is formed by the 12 large VVs (purple circles in Fig. 2) because

of the following three reasons.
1) They present the better ratio of the α-β/x-y voltage pro-
duction [26].
2) They are located in nearly phase opposition in the x-y
plane (shifted by 150°).
3) There is only one switching state change between adjacent
large VVs.
On the other hand, the null vector is also defined as an eligible
VV because its combination with two active VVs allows the
Fig. 2. Stator voltage vectors in the α-β and x-y planes.
following.
1) Optimizing the α-β voltage selection because the ampli-
tude and angular voltage requirements can be satisfied at
the same time.
Clarke transformation matrix from (1), it is possible to map the
2) Minimizing the x-y currents because the application time
phase voltages into VSD variables. The VVs have been identified
of the active vectors can be adapted to the operation point.
with the decimal number equivalent to the binary codification
The VVs candidates are then used as the inputs in a discretized
of [S] [26] and their location in both planes is shown in Fig. 2.
machine model [14] that provides the predicted stator currents
The same VSD can also be employed to express the IM
equations in a simple manner d
[Xαβxy ] = [A] · [Xαβxy ] + [B] · [Uαβxy ]

 dt
d d
vαs = Rs + Ls iαs + M iαr [Yαβxy ] = [C] · [Xαβxy ] (3)
dt dt

 with
d d
vβs = Rs + Ls iβs + M iβr
dt dt [Uαβxy ] = [vαs vβs vxs vys 0 0]T


vxs = Rs + Lls
d
ixs [Xαβxy ] = [iαs iβs ixs iys iαr iβr ]T
dt

 [Yαβxy ] = [iαs iβs ixs iys 0 0]T
d
vys = Rs + Lls iys
dt where matrices [A], [B], and [C] define the dynamics of a six-

 phase IM and their coefficients are dependent on the machine
d
0 = R r + Lr iαr + ωr Lr iβr parameters [14].
dt The q reference current is obtained from an outer proportional-
d integral (PI) speed controller, whereas the d reference current is
+M iαs + ωr M iβs · set constant to provide the rated stator flux. These references
dt

 can then be rotated to an α-β stationary reference frame using
d
0 = − ωr Lr iαr + Rr + Lr iβr − ωr M iαs the inverse of the Park transformation D−1 [24]. Finally, the x-y
dt
reference currents are set to zero as it is common in IMs with
d distributed windings.
+M iβs
dt Once the reference and estimated VSD currents are available,
Te = P M (iαs iβr − iβs iαr ) (2) a standard MPC cost function J1 allows evaluating the goodness
of the different VVs
where Ls = Lls + 3 · Lm , Lr = Llr + 3 · Lm , M = 3 · Lm ,  2  2
and ωr is the rotor electrical speed ( ωm = P · ωr , being P J1 = i∗α − îα + i∗β − îβ
the pole pair number). Indices s and r denote the stator and
 2  2 
rotor variables, and subscripts l and m indicate the leakage and + K1 i∗x − îx + i∗y − îy (4)
magnetizing inductance, respectively.
where K1 is the weighting factor related to the x-y currents. The
III. SMART VOLTAGE VECTOR-BASED superscriptsˆand ∗ indicate the predicted and reference values,
MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL respectively.
From the iterative calculation of (4), it is finally possible to
A. Control Scheme select the three best VVs (namely, V1opt , V2opt , and V3opt ) that
SVV-MPC uses two stages to achieve a suitable dynamic provide the lowest values of the cost function (J11 , J12 , and J13 ,
response and minimum current harmonic distortion (see Fig. 3). respectively).
1) Stage 1: Selection of the Three Best VVs: As shown in 2) Stage 2: Generation of the SVVs: The objective of the
Fig. 3, the first control stage selects the three best VVs for each second stage is the minimization of the cost function J2 with
sampling period. The set of selectable active VVs in SVV-MPC the smart time combination (topt opt opt
1 , t2 , and t3 ) of the VVs

thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
 GONZÁLEZ-PRIETO et al.: SMART VOLTAGE VECTORS FOR MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF SIX-PHASE ELECTRIC DRIVES 9027

Fig. 3. SVV-MPC scheme for a six-phase IM drive, where D−1 is the inverse of the Park transformation matrix [14]. Being in this work, irated
d =
0.8 A.

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the proposed SVV-MPC algorithm focused on the t1 optimization.

(V1opt , V2opt , and V3opt ) selected in stage 1 B. Online Optimization Algorithm

Focusing on the online iterative search of the SVVs, an
2 2 online branch and bound algorithm is employed [27] (see
J2 = (i∗α − îα )2 + (i∗β − îβ )2 + K2 ((i∗x − îx ) + (i∗y − îy ) )
t1 optimization in Fig. 4). This optimization algorithm family
(5)
is based on branching an initial solution and bounding the
where K2 is the weighting factor related to the x-y current
nonoptimal solutions to solve the problem in a reduced amount
control.
of time. For the first iteration step, the algorithm needs to use
For that purpose, an online iterative search of the correspond-
a seed. To ensure a fast convergence, the cost function values
ing application times is done to generate different SVVs
(J11 , J12 , and J13 ) of the selected VVs are used in this work to
generate the first value of the duties
SVVj = tj1 · V1opt + tj2 · V2opt + tj3 · V3opt (6)

J12 · J13
where superscript j denotes the iterative index. t01 =
J11 · J12 + J11 · J13 + J12 · J13
As shown in Fig. 4, the different SVVs are evaluated in the
discretized machine model of (3) to obtain the predicted stator J11 · J13
t02 =
currents that are then assessed in the cost function J2 from J11 · J12 + J11 · J13 + J12 · J13
(5). Finally, the SVV that provides the minimum J2 value is
J11 · J12
employed as the control action for the VSCs in each sampling t03 = . (7)
period (see Fig. 3). J11 · J12 + J11 · J13 + J12 · J13

thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
 9028 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2021

With these values of the application times, the seed SVV0 is

obtained from (6). Using this initial time solution, the branch
and bound algorithm evaluates the initial solution SVV0 and
later explores up to six different branches of time to optimize t1
according to the following:

tj1 = tj−1
1 + tj−1
1 /Δt

Δt ∈ [±4, ±8, ±16] (8)

subjected to

0 ≤ tj1 ≤ 1. (9) Fig. 5. Voltage output of VV-MPC in (a) α-β and (b) x-y planes.
As t1 varies, t2 and t3 are recalculated as follows:

 
tj2 = 1 − tj1 · J13 / J12 + J13 some switching harmonics would appear. This situation occurs,

for example, when two medium VVs are combined [26].
 
tj3 = 1 − tj1 · J12 / J12 + J13 (10)
in order to satisfy the sampling time restriction
tj1 + tj2 + tj3 = 1. (11)
The t1 optimization block from Fig. 4 provides more de-
tails about the structure of the optimization problem and its
interaction with the control scheme. After t1 is optimized,
the optimization of t2 starts exploring different time branches
(Δt2 ∈ [±4, ±8, ±16]) subjected to the same time restrictions
used in the t1 optimization process. However, since the value of
t1 is already fixed, only t3 must be recalculated for each tj2 using
(11). Consequently, topt
3 is directly obtained in the optimization
of t2 satisfying (11) for topt
1 and topt
2 .
The generation of SVVs with three different VVs and the
online search of the application times increase the refinement
of the available α-β VVs, minimizing at the same time the x-y
voltage production, as it is further described in the following
section.
IV. OUTPERFORMING MPC LIMITATIONS WITH SVVS
The use of SVVs increases the number of available voltage
states in MPC strategies. This fact helps mitigating the control
limitations of previous MPC schemes. The objective of this
section is to analyze the consequences of this SVV feature on
the MPC performance.
Since finite control set MPC performs the current regulation
directly, the voltage references do not exist in this control
approach. It is assumed, however, that there is a certain α-β
∗
reference voltage Vαβ that would provide the α-β reference
currents. In the case of x-y components, their regulation requires
a detailed analysis. MPC based on VVs was suggested as a
solution for the incapacity of standard MPC to regulate the
x-y subspace [14]. This set of VVs is formed by active VVs in
the α-β subspace with a null average production in the x-y plane.
However, this average solution does not optimize the waveform
of the voltages within the sampling period. It is not the same
if the average is null because the voltage is constantly zero or
if the average is null because the high instantaneous voltages
cancel out. In the latter case, even with a zero-average voltage,
thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
On the basis of these considerations, a practical example of
the α-β and x-y voltage regulation for three MPC versions is
described in what follows.
A. Voltage Vector-Model Predictive Control [14]
This MPC version uses VVs formed by the couples of
medium-large and large VVs that are applied 27% and 73%
of the sampling time, respectively. The two vectors that form
the VV are aligned in the α-β plane but have opposite directions
in the x-y plane, producing a null average voltage in this plane.
For the sake of example, VV (38-52) is formed by VVs 38 and
52, as shown in Fig. 5.
The α-β reference voltage for the proposed case study Vαβ ∗
is marked in Fig 5(a) using a yellow cross. Since VVs have a
static nature, MPC can only provide a discrete voltage response
(i.e., the 13 available VVs). Unfortunately, the control error in
the α-β plane cannot be reduced with any control action once
the VV is selected. Consequently, when VV (38-52) is chosen as
the optimal voltage state [see red circle in Fig. 5(a)], the control
error in the α-β plane is determined by the localization of this
VV.
On the other hand, the x-y current regulation is directly done
in the open-loop mode with the implementation of the VVs.
Although the average value is zero, the instantaneous values
of the x-y voltages within the sampling period are not null
Specifically, a small (52) and a medium-large (38) x-y VVs
are applied and this leads to the appearance of the x-y current
harmonics that can be significant due to the low impedance in
this plane.
B. DVV-Model Predictive Control [26]
The implementation of DVVs enhances the dynamic character
of MPC because both the selected VVs and their duties are
variable. In turn, this enriches the availability of voltage states
and allows providing a voltage output that is closer to the optimal
∗
α-β voltage Vαβ than in the case of VV-MPC. In Fig 6(a), the
red lines show the available DVVs when two active vectors
(52-36) or one active vector plus a zero vector (52-0) are selected
in DVV-MPC. The DVV (52-0) can reach the radial voltage
demand, whereas the DVV (52-36) can satisfy the tangential
 GONZÁLEZ-PRIETO et al.: SMART VOLTAGE VECTORS FOR MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF SIX-PHASE ELECTRIC DRIVES
Fig. 6. Voltage output of DVV-MPC in (a) α-β, (b) x-y planes applying (52-36) combination, and (c) x-y planes applying (52-0) combination.
Fig. 7. Voltage output of SVV-MPC in (a) α-β and (b) x-y planes.
voltage requirement. However, both voltage requests cannot be
provided at the same time.
Focusing now on the x-y current regulation, the variable
nature of the duties and their online estimation allows obtaining a
tradeoff between the α-β and x-y planes for each operating point.
Unfortunately, with only two voltage states the x-y production
cannot be completely minimized. In the case of DVV (52-36),
the average value of the x-y voltages can be reduced to some
extent because voltages vectors 52 and 36 are shifted by 150°
in this plane. However, two small active VVs (52 and 36) are
applied during the whole sampling time [see Fig. 6(b)], and
consequently, x-y currents will inevitably appear. On the other
hand, when the DVV (52-0) is selected the duration of active
VVs in the x-y plane is reduced within the sampling time [see
Fig. 6(c)]. Unfortunately, the DVV (52-0) cannot achieve a null
average x-y voltage since only one active VV is applied.
C. SVV-Model Predictive Control
With the implementation of this MPC version, the range
of available voltage states augments up to cover the whole
α-β voltage surface. Fig. 7(a) shows how the required α-β
∗
voltage Vαβ is reached with the SVV (0-52-36). Thanks to
the combination of VVs 52 and 36, it is possible to fulfill
the tangential voltage requirement, whereas the use of the null
VV allows achieving the radial component. In other words, the
MPC based on SVVs can completely satisfy the α-β voltage
requirements applying the optimal duty time of each VV.
thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
9029
Fig. 8. Scheme of the test bench used for the experimental results.
However, in order to obtain the best solution in both planes,
the minimization of x-y components must also be accomplished.
Regardless of the obtained time values (topt opt opt
1 , t2 , and t3 ),
the use of the null VV reduces the active x-y voltage pro-
duction because of small active vectors 52. Furthermore, the
combination of VVs 52 and 36 results in a low average value
of the x-y voltages [see Fig. 7(b)]. In other words, the SVV
(0-52-36) combines the low x-y average voltage of DVV (52-36)
in Fig. 6(b) with the low instantaneous voltage production of
DVV (52-0) in Fig. 6(c).
To sum up, the proposed SVVs provide a higher refinement
of the α-β voltage production compared with VVs and DVVs,
and a low value of the average (over the sampling period) and
instantaneous (within the sampling period) x-y voltages. The
experimental results in following section confirm the impact
of this enhanced voltage production capability on the current
quality provided by the MPC scheme.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A. Experimental Test Bench
The experimental testing has been carried out using the test
bench, as shown in Fig. 8. The six-phase drive is composed
of an asymmetrical six-phase IM powered by the conventional
two-level three-phase VSCs (Semikron SKS22F modules). The
control actions are performed by a digital signal processor
(TMS320F28335 from Texas Instruments, TI). The control unit
 9030 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2021

Fig. 9. Test 1: High-speed operation of SVV-MPC with the soft regulation of the x-y plane (left column) and SVV-MPC with the hard regulation of
the x-y plane (right column). From top to bottom: (a) motor speed, (b) d-q currents, (c) x-y currents, and (d) set 1 of phase currents. Test conditions
∗ = 600 r/min, T
are ωm load = 5 N · m, SVV-MPC with the soft regulation of the x-y plane fswitching = 1747 Hz,and SVV-MPC with the hard regulation
of the x-y plane fswitching = 1700 Hz.

TABLE I with unfavorable conditions. Finally, a speed reversal test has

IM DRIVE PARAMETERS
is programmed using a JTAG. Table I lists the IM drive pa-
rameters obtained using the ac time domain and standstill with
inverter supply tests [28], [29].
B. Experimental Results
This section provides the experimental results to prove the
advantages of SVV-MPC over DVV-MPC. The goodness of
SVV-MPC is evaluated in six different tests. Test 1, first, com-
pares two different setups of SVV-MPC and selects the most ap-
propriate weighting factors. Tests 2 and 3 subsequently compare
the behavior of the proposed control method with DVV-MPC
for two different operating points and evaluate the main quality
indices for both strategies. In these tests, the steady-state perfor-
mance has been analyzed and both control methods have been
implemented with a sampling frequency of 3 kHz. On the other
hand, tests 4 and 5 evaluate the SVV-MPC dynamic behavior. In
these dynamic tests, the DVV-MPC has been implemented with
a higher sampling frequency (5 kHz) than the proposed control
scheme (3 kHz) in order to validate the goodness of SVV-MPC
been added to illustrate the SVV-MPC performance for these
extreme dynamic conditions.
In test 1, the reference speed is set to 600 r/min and the load
torque is equal to 5 N·m. For this operating condition, two
different settings of SVV-MPC have been assessed in steady
state: a soft regulation of the x-y plane with K1 =K2 = 0.5,
(see Fig. 9, left column) and a hard regulation of the x-y plane
with K1 =K2 = 1 (see Fig. 9, right column). Regardless of the
selected setup, the tracking of the reference speed is satisfac-
torily done, as shown in Fig. 9(a). However, there is an offset
between the reference value of the q-current and the measured
q-current in the case of SVV-MPC with the hard regulation of
the x-y plane [see Fig. 9(b)]. This offset appears because the
high values of the x-y weighting factors do not allow a suitable
tracking of the currents involved in the flux/torque production.
On the other hand, SVV-MPC with K1 =K2 = 0.5 achieves a
reduced x-y current content [see Fig. 9(c)] with an adequate d-q
current tracking. In the case of phase currents, their behavior is
dependent on the d-q and x-y regulation since their reference
frames are directly related [1]. Therefore, the phase currents
show a sinusoidal waveform with a reduced ripple [see Fig. 9(d)].
Based on the results obtained in test 1, the SVV-MPC with a soft
regulation of the x-y plane is used for the rest of the tests.
Test 2 compares the performance of DVV-MPC with SVV-
MPC at low speeds [100 r/min, as shown in Fig. 10(a)]. Regard-
ing the regulation of the d-q currents, both control strategies offer
a satisfactory tracking of their reference values. Nevertheless,
the ripple of the d-q currents with SVV-MPC is significantly
lower [see Fig. 10(b)]. Analyzing the obtained x-y currents,
SVV-MPC also outperforms DVV-MPC [see Fig. 10(c)] with a

thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
 GONZÁLEZ-PRIETO et al.: SMART VOLTAGE VECTORS FOR MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF SIX-PHASE ELECTRIC DRIVES 9031

Fig. 10. Test 2: Low-speed operation of DVV-MPC (left column) and selected SVV-MPC (right column). From top to bottom: (a) motor speed, (b)
d-q currents, (c) x-y currents, (d) set 1 of phase currents, (e) average value of the duty times, (f) histogram of selected voltage vectors, and (g)
∗ = 100 r/min, T
current spectrum of phase a1 . Test conditions are ωm load = 1 N · m, DVV-MPC fswitching = 1432 Hz,and SVV-MPC fswitching =
1676 Hz.

TABLE II providing the percentage of time that a certain type of vector

TEST 2: SUMMARY OF QUALITY INDICES
standard deviation that is more than double in the latter control
approach (see Table II). The regulation improvement in both
d-q and x-y currents is obtained thanks to the optimal combi-
nation of the selected VVs and their corresponding application
times [the right column of Fig. 10(e) and (f)], where ratio Tm is
the percentage value of the duty times of V1opt , V2opt , and V3opt
during all the sampling periods Tm of the test, whereas V opt
classifies the different selected vectors according to their size,
(zero or large) has been selected in the first (V1opt ), second
(V2opt ), or third place (V3opt ). As shown in Fig. 10(e), active
VVs are combined in a similar proportion in both methods.
Nevertheless, in the case of SVV-MPC it is not necessary to
apply active VVs during the whole sampling period thanks to
the inclusion of the null VV. This issue is especially interesting
in the operating points with low-voltage requirements, where
the null VV allows obtaining a lower average voltage in the
α-β plane and a lower duration of the non-null x-y voltages.
In fact, SVV-MPC in test 2 always selects the null VV as the
best option [V1opt purple bar is 100% in Fig. 10(f)] and applies
it during 80% of the sampling period on average [t1 is 80% in
Fig. 10(e), marked in purple color]. As a consequence of the
better current tracking of SVV-MPC in both d-q and x-y planes,

thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
 9032 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2021

Fig. 11. Test 3: High-speed operation of DVV-MPC (left column) and selected SVV-MPC (right column). From top to bottom: (a) motor speed, (b)
d-q currents, (c) x-y currents, (d) set 1 of phase currents, (e) average value of the duty times, (f) histogram of selected voltage vectors, and (g)
∗ = 500 r/min, T
current spectrum of phase a1 . Test conditions are ωm load = 4.5 N · m, DVV-MPC fswitching = 1430 Hz,and SVV-MPC fswitching =
1673 Hz.

the quality of the phase currents is also enhanced [see Fig. 10(d)].
To quantify this improvement, Table II includes the quality
indices for DVV-MPC and SVV-MPC. The THD of the phase
currents is 24.19% for SVV-MPC and 118.25% for DVV-MPC,
hence the THD is reduced by 80%. This improvement in the
harmonic distortion is also confirmed in Fig. 10(g), where the
current spectrum of phase a1 is shown. The rms value of phase
currents is also reduced from 1.095 A for DVV-MPC to 0.625 A
for SVV-MPC, resulting in a reduction of the copper losses of
67.4%.
Since the proposed control method is based on the use of
three VVs per sampling period, the switching frequency is
14.6% lower in DVV-MPC (1432 Hz compared with 1676 Hz
in SVV-MPC). However, thanks to the smart application of
these VVs, the significant improvement in the current qual-
ity (80% reduction of the THD and 67.4% reduction of the
stator copper losses) compensates for the increased switching
frequency.
To further justify the advantages of SVV-MPC over DVV-
MPC in different operating conditions, test 3 compares the per-
formance of both methods at 500 r/min [see Fig. 11(a)] and the
constant value of the d-q currents [see Fig. 11(b)]. As depicted in
Fig. 11(c), SVV-MPC again shows a better regulation of the x-y
currents due to the optimal voltage combination [see Fig. 11(e)
and (f)]. As expected, since the operating conditions in test 3 are
more demanding in terms of voltage production than in test 2, the
duty of the null VV decreases [t1 is 55% in Fig. 11(e)]. In spite of
the new requirements, the null VV is still the only VV selected as
the first choice in the case of SVV-MPC [V1opt purple bar is still
100% in Fig. 11(f)]. This result confirms the importance of the
null VV to provide an optimized voltage solution in both planes.
In this regard, the proposed control scheme reduces the standard
deviation of the x-y currents (σxy ) by 55.5% (see Table III) and
the total harmonic distortion of the phase currents by 56.3% (see
Table III). It can be noted in the right column of Fig. 11(d) that the
phase currents with SVV-MPC show a much lower ripple than

thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
 GONZÁLEZ-PRIETO et al.: SMART VOLTAGE VECTORS FOR MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF SIX-PHASE ELECTRIC DRIVES 9033

Fig. 12. Test 4: Tracking of the speed ramp profile of DVV-MPC (left column) and selected SVV-MPC (right column). From top to bottom: (a) motor
∗ = 300 r/min, ω ∗ = 500 r/min, T
speed, (b) d-q currents, and (c) x-y currents. Test conditions are ωm m load = 2 N · m, Tload = 4.5 N · m, DVV-MPC
fswitching = 2300 Hz,and SVV-MPC fswitching = 1670 Hz.

Fig. 13. Test 5: Tracking of the speed step profile of DVV-MPC (left column) and selected SVV-MPC (right column). From top to bottom: (a) motor
∗ = 300 r/min, ω ∗ = 500 r/min, T
speed, (b) d-q currents, and (c) x-y currents. Test conditions are ωm m load = 2 N · m, Tload = 4.5 N · m, DVV-MPC
fswitching = 2300 Hz,and SVV-MPC fswitching = 1670 Hz.

TABLE III mitigation is better when the SVV-MPC technique is employed

TEST 3: SUMMARY OF QUALITY INDICES
DVV-MPC [see Fig. 11(d), left column], visually confirming the
impact of the SVVs on the MPC performance. This phase current
harmonic reduction is validated in the results from Fig. 11(g),
where the current spectrum of phase a1 is depicted.
Test 4 evaluates the capability of SVV-MPC to regulate the
six-phase drive in a speed ramp test. Regardless of the selected
control scheme (DVV-MPC in the left column and SVV-MPC
in the right column), the tracking of the reference speed and
currents is satisfactorily done, as shown in Fig. 12. Although
the sampling frequency of the proposed control scheme is lower
than in the DVV-MPC case, the regulation of the d-q currents
is suitable. From the point of view of the x-y currents, their
[see Fig. 12(c)], in spite of its lower switching frequency (see
the caption of Fig. 12).
Test 5 proves the performance of SVV-MPC when a sudden
change of the reference speed occurs, which in turn implies a
torque step since the load is speed-dependent in the employed
test bench. The DVV-MPC results are included in the left column
of Fig. 13, whereas the SVV-MPC results are shown on the right
side. The tracking of the reference variables is again satisfactory
[see Figs. 13(a) and (b)] in spite of the higher sampling period
used for SVV-MPC. Thanks to the implementation of the pro-
posed algorithm, the reduced x-y currents are obtained, although
the switching frequency is around 27% lower in the case of
SVV-MPC (see the caption of Fig. 13, where the switching
frequencies have been included).
Finally, a speed reversal test is added to evaluate the SVV-
MPC behavior in this dynamic situation. The reference speed
changes from 500 to −500 r/min at t = 1.5 s and the load
torque is 4 N·m when the machine reaches these speeds. The

thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
 9034 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2021
Fig. 14. Test 6: Speed reversal test for SVV-MPC. From top to bottom:
a) motor speed, b) d-q currents, c) x-y currents, and d) zoom of the set
1 of phase currents.
TABLE IV
COMPUTATIONAL COST AND TIME REFINEMENT
OF DVV AND SVV APPROACHES
proposed results show a satisfactory response from the point
of view of the speed regulation [see Fig. 14(a)]. To provide this
acceptable regulation of the speed, the q-current varies when the
reference speed is modified [see Fig. 14(b)]. In these dynamic
conditions, SVV-MPC again produces a suitable mitigation of
the x-y currents and, therefore, a reduced harmonic distortion
in the phase currents [see Fig. 14(b) and (c)].
To sum up, tests 2 and 3 confirm that there is a very pronounced
improvement of the current quality with the inclusion of the
SVVs at the expense of a limited increase of the switching
frequency when the sampling period of both methods is the
same. On the other hand, tests 4 and 5 show the dynamic behavior
of SVV-MPC. These dynamic tests also validate the capability
of the proposed control scheme to outperform DVV-MPC even
when the sampling and switching frequencies of SVV-MPC are
lower. From the point of view of the computational burden, the
proposed SVV-MPC requires a higher computational burden
but it also provides a better time refinement of the duties (see
Table IV). In fact, the minimum time step is only limited in the
case of SVV-MPC by the deadtime of the employed inverter,
whereas in DVV-MPC the refinement of the calculated duty time
is equal to 5% of the sampling period.
thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
VI. CONCLUSION
In this article, the proposed SVVs provided higher flexibility
and refinement to MPC in six-phase IM drives. While the branch
and bound optimization algorithm allowed the real-time deter-
mination of the duties, the simultaneous optimization of three
switching states brought a more precise control in both α-β and
x-y planes. Compared with the case when DVVs were used,
SVV-MPC obtained a significant improvement of the current
quality (80% and 56% at 100 and 500 r/min, respectively). This
reduction of the harmonic distortion was obtained with a slightly
higher switching frequency when the same sampling period
was selected. The online selection of the VVs and the smart
determination of the duties add an enhanced current quality to
other well-known advantages of predictive strategies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank their grandmother Ana for
her love.
REFERENCES
[1] M. J. Duran, E. Levi, and F. Barrero, “Multiphase electric drives: In-
troduction,” in Proc. Wiley Encyclopedia Elect. Electron. Eng., 2017,
pp. 1–26.
[2] E. Levi, R. Bojoi, F. Profumo, H. A. Toliyat, and S. Williamson, “Mul-
tiphase induction motor drives—A technology status review,” IET Electr.
Power Appl., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 489–516, 2007.
[3] E. Levi, “Multiphase electric machines for variable-speed applications,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1893–1909, May 2008.
[4] M. J. Duran, I. Gonzalez-Prieto, F. Barrero, E. Levi, L. Zarri, and M.
Mengoni, “A simple braking method for six-phase induction motor drives
with unidirectional power flow in the base-speed region,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 6032–6041, Aug. 2017.
[5] I. Subotic, N. Bodo, and E. Levi, “Single-phase on-board integrated battery
chargers for EVS based on multiphase machines,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 6511–6523, Sep. 2016.
[6] M. Jones, S. N. Vukosavic, and E. Levi, “Parallel-connected multiphase
multidrive systems with single inverter supply,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2047–2057, Jun. 2009.
[7] M. J. Duran, I. González-Prieto, A. González-Prieto, and F. Barrero,
“Multiphase energy conversion systems connected to microgrids with
unequal power-sharing capability,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 32,
no. 4, pp. 1386–1395, Dec. 2017.
[8] A. Iqbal, R. Alammari, M. Mosa, and H. Abu-Rub, “Finite set model pre-
dictive current control with reduced and constant common mode voltage
for a five-phase voltage source inverter,” in Proc. IEEE 23rd Int. Symp.
Ind. Electron., 2014, pp. 479–484.
[9] D. Jiang and F. Wang, “A general current ripple prediction method for
the multiphase voltage source converter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2643–2648, Jun. 2014.
[10] I. González-Prieto, I. Zoric, M. J. Duran, and E. Levi, “Constrained model
predictive control in nine-phase induction motor drives,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1881–1889, Dec. 2019.
[11] Y. Luo and C. Liu, “A flux constrained predictive control for a six-phase
PMSM motor with lower complexity,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 66,
no. 7, pp. 5081–5093, Jul. 2019.
[12] P. Gonçalves, S. Cruz, and A. Mendes, “Finite control set model predictive
control of six-phase asymmetrical machines—An overview,” Energies,
vol. 12, pp. 1–42, 2019.
[13] P. Garcia-Entrambasaguas, I. Zoric, I. González-Prieto, M. J. Duran, and E.
Levi, “Direct torque and predictive control strategies in nine-phase electric
drives using virtual voltage vectors,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34,
no. 12, pp. 12106–12119, Dec. 2019.
[14] 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.
 GONZÁLEZ-PRIETO et al.: SMART VOLTAGE VECTORS FOR MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF SIX-PHASE ELECTRIC DRIVES
[15] Y. Zhang and H. Yang, “Two-vector-based model predictive torque control
without weighting factors for induction motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1381–1390, Feb. 2016.
[16] C. Xue, W. Song, X. Wu, and X. Feng, “A constant switching frequency
finite-control-set predictive current control scheme of a five-phase inverter
with duty-ratio optimization,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 33, no.
4, pp. 3583–3594, Apr. 2018.
[17] C. Xiong, H. Xu, T. Guan, and P. Zhou, “A constant switching fre-
quency multiple-vector-based model predictive current control of five-
phase PMSM with nonsinusoidal back EMF,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 1695–1707, Mar. 2020.
[18] 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 Electr. Power Appl., vol. 11, no.
5, pp. 836–846, 2017.
[19] Y. Luo and C. Liu, “Multi-vector-based model predictive torque control for
a six-phase PMSM motor with fixed switching frequency,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1369–1379, Sep. 2019.
[20] P. F. C. Gonçalves, S. M. A. Cruz, and A. M. S. Mendes, “Fixed and variable
amplitude virtual vectors for model predictive control of six-phase PMSMs
with single neutral configuration,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Technol.,
2019, pp. 267–273.
[21] Y. Luo and C. Liu, “Elimination of harmonic currents using a reference
voltage vector based-model predictive control for a six-phase PMSM
motor,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 6960–6972,
Jul. 2019.
[22] L. Zheng, J. E. Fletcher, B. W. Williams, and X. He, “A novel direct torque
control scheme for a sensorless five-phase induction motor drive,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 503–513, Feb. 2011.
[23] J. K. Pandit, M. V. Aware, R. Nemade, and Y. Tatte, “Simplified imple-
mentation of synthetic vectors for DTC of asymmetric six-phase induction
motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 2306–2318,
May/Jun. 2018.
[24] J. J. Aciego, I. Gonzalez-Prieto, and M. J. Duran, “Model predictive control
of six-phase induction motor drives using two virtual voltage vectors,”
IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 321–330,
Mar. 2019.
[25] P. F. C. Gonçalves, S. M. A. Cruz, and A. M. S. Mendes, “Predictive
current control of six-phase permanent magnet synchronous machines with
modulated virtual vectors,” in Proc. IECON 45th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind.
Electron. Soc., 2019, pp. 6229–6234.
[26] J. J. Aciego, I. Gonzalez-Prieto, M. J. Duran, M. Bermudez, and P. Salas-
Biedma, “Model predictive control based on dynamic voltage vectors
for six-phase induction machines,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power
Electron., to be published, doi: 10.1109/JESTPE.2020.2977144.
[27] E. L. Lawler and D. E. Wood, “Branch-and-bound methods: A survey,”
Oper. Res., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 699–719, 1966.
thorized licensed use limited to: AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING. Downloaded on July 04,2021 at 01:36:47 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions app
9035
[28] A. G. Yepes et al., “Parameter identification of multiphase induction ma-
chines with distributed windings—Part 1: Sinusoidal excitation methods,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1056–1066, Dec. 2012.
[29] J. A. Riveros et al., “Parameter identification of multiphase induction
machines with distributed windings—Part 2: Time-domain techniques,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1067–1077, Dec. 2012.
Angel González-Prieto was born in Malaga,
Spain, in 1993. He received the University and
M.Sc. degrees in industrial engineering, in 2017
and 2019, respectively, from the University of
Málaga, Málaga, Spain, where he is currently
working toward the Ph.D. degree in electric en-
ergy systems program.
His research interests include multiphase
machines and renewable energy conversion
system.
Ignacio González-Prieto was born in Malaga,
Spain, in 1987. He received the Industrial En-
gineer and M.Sc. degrees in fluid mechanics
from the University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain,
in 2012 and 2013, respectively, and the Ph.D.
degree in electronic engineering from the Uni-
versity of Seville, Sevilla, Spain, in 2016.
His research interests include multiphase ma-
chines, wind energy systems, and electrical ve-
hicles.
Mario J. Duran (Member, IEEE) was born in Bil-
bao, Spain, in 1975. He received the M.Sc. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the
University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain, in 1999
and 2003, respectively.
He is currently a Full Professor with the De-
partment of Electrical Engineering, University of
Malaga. His research interests include modeling
and control of multiphase drives and renewable
energies conversion systems.