Modulated Model Predictive Speed Controller For PMSM Drives Employing Voltage Based Cost Function

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Open Journal of the Industrial Electronics Society.
This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/OJIES.2024.3368568
Modulated Model Predictive Speed

Controller for PMSM Drives Employing
Voltage Based Cost Function
Ahmed Aboelhassan1,2, (Member, IEEE), Shuo Wang1, (Member, IEEE), Giampaolo Buticchi1,
(Senior Member, IEEE), Vasyl Varvolik1, (Member, IEEE), Michael Galea3, (Senior Member,
IEEE), and Serhiy Bozhko4, (Senior Member, IEEE).
1
Key Laboratory of More Electric Aircraft Technology of Zhejiang Province, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo 315100, China.
2
Electrical and Control Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Technology, Arab Academy for Science, Technology, and Maritime Transport
(AASTMT), Alexandria 1029, Egypt.
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Malta, 2080 Msida, Malta.
4
University of Nottingham, University Park, NG7 2RD Nottingham, U.K.
Corresponding author: Shuo Wang (shuo.wang@nottingham.edu.cn).

This work was supported by Zhejiang Basic and Commonweal Program with project code LQ23E070002.
ABSTRACT – Various electrical drive systems have widely implemented the classical cascaded field-oriented
control (FOC) topology, including speed loop, current loop, and modulation. On the other hand, modulated model
predictive control (M2PC) has been employed recently for different applications for faster dynamic response and
better power quality. The FOC topology's speed and current control loops can be merged to simplify the control
system structure and improve the system dynamics. Therefore, a non-cascaded speed loop controller employing
M2PC for permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) is introduced. The required simulation work has been
developed to analyze the algorithm performance compared to PI, non-cascaded MPC, and M2PC controllers. In
addition, it has been applied practically through a dedicated testing rig, and results are investigated showing its
merits including harmonic content, dynamic behavior, and robustness against parameter mismatch.
INDEX TERMS — Modulated Model Predictive Speed Control, Electrical Drive Applications, PMSM Machine,
Voltage Based Cost Function.
I. INTRODUCTION the power electronics converter as modulation signals are

generated at the initial stage of each sampling period and
Electrification of future transport systems has received require one cycle to be fully applied [7].
growing interest over the last few decades to achieve higher On the other hand, speed control is essential for the electric
system efficiency and reduce emissions. This trend results in drive system to enhance its performance and efficiency
an increased number of electrical drive systems that have throughout different operating conditions and load variations
been adopted in different transportation applications [1]. [8]. Deferent techniques have been proposed in the literature
Consequently, the demand for improved electrical drive to perform the PMSM speed loop control better. An adaptive
systems has increased as industry, energy, and transportation PID controller based on the gradient descent method has
systems have evolved [2]. Permanent magnet synchronous been proposed in [8]. Moreover, a robust speed controller is
motors (PMSMs) are employed in several applications presented in [9] employing the disturbance observer
because of their high power density, low maintenance cost, approach. A sliding mode control is given in [10] for dual
and high efficiency [3], [4]. PMSM parallel operation. Besides, an active disturbance
PMSM drive system is considered a multi-input multi- rejection control for current and speed loops is developed in
output nonlinear system, and its control behavior can be [11] for PMSM, while virtual cogging torque control is used
influenced by several uncertain factors during operation such to reduce the speed ripples in [12].
as parameters' variation, external load disturbance, cross- Model predictive control (MPC) has been acknowledged
coupling among 𝑑𝑞 current components, nonlinear as one of the most effective techniques to emerge from
dynamics, and un-modeled parameters of the system [5]. modern control theory into industrial applications [13]. It has
Additionally, the optimal performance of the PMSM been successfully applied for speed control of PMSM [14]–
electrical drive can be diminished if the time delay between [16], and induction motor drives [17]. MPC can be
feedback measurements and actuation is not considered. It developed based on a short prediction horizon of 𝑛𝑦 equal to
would impact the control system's stability and restrict its
1 or a long prediction horizon of 𝑛𝑦 ≥ 2 [18]. The proper
bandwidth and dynamic performance [6]. The time delay is
caused by the controller's digital computational period and selection of the 𝑛𝑦 value is important and considered as a
direct approach to overcome the mentioned time delay issues.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Open Journal of the Industrial Electronics Society. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
However, the model computational burden should be 𝑑 1 (1)

considered as it would be challenging for practical 𝑖𝑑 = (𝑣 − 𝑅𝑠 𝑖𝑑 + 𝐿𝑞 𝑖𝑞 𝜔𝑒 )
𝑑𝑡 𝐿𝑑 𝑑
implementation in case of long prediction horizons [19].
The performance of the MPC controller can be enhanced 𝑑 1 (2)
𝑖 = (𝑣 − 𝑅𝑠 𝑖𝑞 − 𝐿𝑑 𝑖𝑑 𝜔𝑒 − 𝜑𝑓 𝜔𝑒 )
by adapting the cost function weighting factors online or 𝑑𝑡 𝑞 𝐿𝑞 𝑞
eliminating the steady state error (SSE) from the system 𝑑 𝑝 𝐵𝑦 (3)
variables. In [20], the given preexisting error of the system 𝜔𝑒 = (𝑇𝑒 − 𝜔𝑒 − 𝑇𝐿 )
variable is considered to adapt the cost function weighting 𝑑𝑡 𝐽 𝑝
factors dynamically. Furthermore, an artificial neural 𝑇𝑒 =
3𝑝
(𝜑𝑓 𝑖𝑞 + (𝐿𝑑 − 𝐿𝑞 )𝑖𝑑 𝑖𝑞 ) (4)
network algorithm is implemented in [21] to adapt the 2
weighting factors for the control of a power converter online. Where 𝑣𝑑 , 𝑣𝑞 are 𝑑𝑞 stator voltage components, 𝑖𝑑 , 𝑖𝑞 are
To mitigate the estimated SSE of grid-connected multi-level 𝑑𝑞 stator current components, 𝐿𝑑 , 𝐿𝑞 are 𝑑𝑞 synchronous
converter controlled variables, the MPC control scheme has inductances, 𝜑𝑓 is stator-rotor flux, 𝜔𝑒 is the electrical
been modified in [22] to eliminate the system model
angular velocity, Rs is stator resistance, 𝑝 is pole pairs, 𝑇𝑒 is
uncertainties. The system transfer function has been
electromagnetic torque, 𝑇𝐿 is load torque, 𝐽 is the moment of
reformed in [23] to the resonant form to improve the steady
inertia, and 𝐵𝑦 is friction coefficient.
state operation for the fault tolerant control of multi-phase
PMSM machine. Since the model is nonlinear, it is required to be linearized
One of the recently introduced MPC topologies is the around a definite operating point using Taylor expansion.
modulated model predictive control (M2PC) [24], [25]. It The linearized equations can be illustrated as:
employs the finite set MPC with the space vector pulse width 𝑖𝑞 𝜔𝑒 = 𝜔𝑒0 𝑖𝑞0 + 𝑖𝑞0 (𝜔𝑒 − 𝜔𝑒0 ) + 𝜔𝑒0 (𝑖𝑞 − 𝑖𝑞0 ) (5)
modulation (SVPWM). The optimal voltage vector will be
investigated by calculating all given voltage vectors of the 𝑖𝑑 𝜔𝑒 = 𝜔𝑒0 𝑖𝑑0 + 𝑖𝑑0 (𝜔𝑒 − 𝜔𝑒0 ) + 𝜔𝑒0 (𝑖𝑑 − 𝑖𝑑0 ) (6)
power converter for improved operation and higher power
quality [26]. It has been implemented successfully in several Where 𝜔𝑒0 , 𝑖𝑑0 and 𝑖𝑞0 are the operating point values of the
applications and systems including a three-phase rectifier linearized model. By substituting (1) and (2) with (5) and (6),
[27], direct matrix converter [28], multi-level converter for the linearized PMSM state-space model is given by:
PMSM [25], and multi-phase induction motor drive [29].
𝐱 . (𝑡) = Am 𝐱(𝑡) + Bm 𝐮(𝑡) + 𝛅𝐦 (7)
Considering the merits of the M2PC controller, a
modulated model predictive speed control (M2PSC) 𝒚(𝑡) = Cm 𝐱(𝑡) + Dm 𝐮(𝑡) (8)
approach is proposed for an enhanced PMSM speed control
behavior and overall electrical drive operation. The speed Where
and current control loops will be combined to execute the 𝐱(𝑡)T = [𝑖𝑑 𝑖𝑞 𝜔𝑒 ]
whole control system at the same sampling time, resulting in
faster dynamic response and improved operation compared 𝐮(𝑡)T = [𝑣𝑑 𝑣𝑞 ]
to the conventional field-oriented control (FOC) structure.
𝐲(𝑡)T = [𝑖𝑑 𝑖𝑞 𝜔𝑒 ]
The reference 𝑑𝑞 voltages will be calculated including the
𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞
system constraints with an adequate prediction window −
𝑅𝑠
𝜔𝑒0 𝑖
𝐿𝑑 𝐿𝑑 𝐿𝑑 𝑞0
considering the system time delay. The applied switching
𝐿𝑑 𝑅𝑠 𝐿𝑑 𝜑𝑓
patterns will be decided according to the proposed voltage Am = − 𝜔𝑒0 − −( 𝑖 + )
𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞 𝑑0 𝐿𝑞
based cost function, which is the paper's main contribution.
Besides, an integrator has been implemented to adapt the 3𝑝2 𝜑𝑓 𝐵𝑦
[ 0 − ]
speed weighting factor to eliminate the SSE throughout 2𝐽 𝐽
different operating conditions for a more robust speed 1⁄ 0

response performance. In addition, an extended state 𝐿𝑑
observer (ESO) is introduced for load torque estimation. Bm = [ 0 1⁄ ]
𝐿𝑞
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the PMSM
0 0
mathematical model and its linearization are addressed in
𝐿𝑞
Section II followed by the equations of the proposed strategy. − 𝜔𝑒0 𝑖𝑞0
𝐿𝑑
Section III is devoted to the simulation results and analysis 𝐿𝑑
of the given strategy compared to the common MPC, M2PC, 𝛅𝐦 = 𝐿𝑞
𝜔𝑒0 𝑖𝑑0
and PI controllers. The description of the testing bench and 𝑝𝑇𝐿
the maintained practical results are illustrated in Section IV, [ − ]
𝐽
while the paper's conclusions are highlighted in Section V.
1 0 0
II. THE M2PSC STRATEGY Cm = [ 0 1 0]
0 0 1
A. PMSM MATHEMATICAL MODEL
It is necessary to present the PMSM model first as MPC is
a model-based control strategy. The differential equations of Dm = 0
PMSM are given by [30]:
This model is discretized with a definite sampling time 𝑇𝑠 𝐱(𝑘 + 1) A

using the forward Euler approximation method. The 𝐱(𝑘 + 2) A2
discretized state-space model of the system is: 𝐱̂(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐱(𝑘 + 3) , Px = A3
⋮ ⋮
𝐱(𝑘 + 1) = A𝐱(𝑘) + B𝐮(𝑘) + 𝜹 (9) [ 𝐱(𝑘 + 𝑛𝑦 ) ] [A𝑛𝑦 ]
𝐲(𝑘) = C𝐱(𝑘) + D𝐮(𝑘) (10) B 0 0 …
AB B 0 …
Where Hx = A2 B AB B …
A = I + Am 𝑇𝑠 = ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
𝑅𝑠 𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞
(1 − 𝑇) 𝑇𝑠 𝜔𝑒0 𝑇𝑠 𝑖𝑞0 [A𝑛𝑦 −1 B A𝑛𝑦 −2 B A𝑛𝑦−3 B …]
𝐿𝑑 𝑠 𝐿𝑑 𝐿𝑑
𝐿𝑑 𝑅𝑠 𝐿𝑑 𝜑𝑓 𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘)
− 𝑇𝑠 𝜔𝑒0 (1 − 𝑇) −𝑇𝑠 ( 𝑖 + )
𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞 𝑠 𝐿𝑞 𝑑0 𝐿𝑞 𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘 + 1)
3𝑃2 𝜑𝑓 𝐵𝑦 ̂ 𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) =
𝐮 𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘 + 2)
[ 0 𝑇𝑠 ( ) (1 − 𝑇𝑠 ) ]
2𝐽 𝐽 ⋮
𝑇𝑠
⁄𝐿 0 [𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘 + 𝑛𝑦 − 1)]
𝑑
B = Bm 𝑇𝑠 = 𝑇𝑠 𝐲(𝑘 + 1) CA
⁄𝐿0 𝐲(𝑘 + 2) CA2
𝑞
[ 0 0 ] 𝐲̂(𝑘 + 1) = 𝐲(𝑘 + 3) , P = CA3
−𝑇𝑠 𝜔𝑒0 𝑖𝑞0 ⋮ ⋮
[𝐲(𝑘 + 𝑛𝑦 )] [CA𝑛𝑦 ]
𝛅 = 𝛅𝐦 𝑇𝑠 = [ 𝑇𝑠 𝜔𝑒0 𝑖𝑑0 ]
𝑝𝑇
−𝑇𝑠 ( 𝐿 ) CB 0 0 …
𝐽 CAB CB 0 …
C = Cm H = CA2 B CAB CB …
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
D = Dm [CA𝑛𝑦−1 B CA𝑛𝑦 −2 B CA𝑛𝑦−3 B …]
B. THE COST FUNCTION

𝐱̂(𝑘 + 1) is the (𝑛 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗ 1 predicted system states, while
𝐲̂(𝑘 + 1) is the (𝑙 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗ 1 system output, 𝐮 ̂ 𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) is the
The M2PSC controller will replace the PI controllers of the
FOC topology to achieve the proposed method. The (𝑚 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗ 1 optimal voltage vector, and P𝑥 , H𝑥 , P, H are
following cost function will be calculated for each voltage the (𝑛 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗ 𝑛 , (𝑛 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗ (𝑚 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) , (𝑙 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗ 𝑛 , (𝑙 ∗
vector: 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗ (𝑚 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) system parameters all over ny. The result of
2 2 minimizing (11) for 𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) is given by:
𝑔 = (𝑢𝑑 (𝑘) − 𝑣𝑑 (𝑘)) + (𝑢𝑞 (𝑘) − 𝑣𝑞 (𝑘)) (11)
𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) = L[(HT Q̂ (𝑘)H +
̂ ̂ ̂ (15)
H Q (𝑘)H+2R (𝑘)) 2H QT (𝑘)(𝐫̂(𝑘)
T T T −1 T
− P𝐱(𝑘))]
Where 𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) will be calculated by solving the following
equation [31]. Where L (𝑚 ∗ (𝑚 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 )) = [I ∶ O], I is an (𝑚 ∗ 𝑚)identity
𝑛𝑦 𝑛 −1 matrix, and O is a 𝑚 ∗ (𝑚 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 − 𝑚) zero matrix, 𝐫̂(𝑘) is the
𝒋= ∑𝑘=1 𝐞T (𝑘)Q(𝑘) 𝑢
𝐞(𝑘) + ∑𝑘=0 𝐮𝑑𝑞 T (𝑘)R(𝑘)𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) (12)
̂ (𝑘) and R
(𝑙 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗ 1 system reference, Q ̂ (𝑘) are (𝑙 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) ∗
𝒋 is subjected to a discretized and linearized PMSM state- (𝑙 ∗ 𝑛𝑦 ) , (𝑚 ∗ 𝑛𝑢 − 1) ∗ (𝑚 ∗ 𝑛𝑢 − 1) weighting matrices.
space model in (9) and (10), where 𝐞(𝑘) = 𝐲(𝑘) − 𝐫(𝑘) is System input constraints have been considered for the given
the (𝑙 ∗ 1) error, 𝐲(𝑘) is the (𝑙 ∗ 1) system output, 𝐫(𝑘) is calculations such as:
the (𝑙 ∗ 1) reference input, 𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) is the (𝑚 ∗ 1) optimal
voltage vector, Q(𝑘) and R(𝑘) are (𝑙 ∗ 𝑙), (𝑚 ∗ 𝑚) weighting
𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) ≤ 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 (16)
matrices, m is the number of inputs, l is the number of outputs, Where 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 is
𝑣𝑑𝑐
⁄2 and 𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛 is
−𝑣𝑑𝑐
⁄2.
n is the number of states, and 𝑛𝑢 is the control horizon. The
model can be employed recursively to ﬁnd the predictions The duty cycles for the active vectors, 𝑑𝑖 and 𝑑𝑗 , and the
over the prediction horizon 𝑛𝑦 to overcome the delay effects, zero vector, 𝑑0 , will be calculated such as [24]:
for instance:
𝑢𝑞 (𝑘) 𝑠𝑑𝑗(𝑘)−𝑢𝑑 (𝑘) 𝑠𝑞𝑗(𝑘)
𝑑𝑖 = | | (17)
𝐱̂(𝑘 + 1) = Px 𝐱(𝑘) + Hx 𝐮
̂ 𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) (13) 𝑗 𝑗
𝑖 (𝑘) 𝑠 (𝑘))
𝑣𝑑𝑐 (𝑠𝑑 (𝑘) 𝑠𝑞𝑖 (𝑘)−(𝑠𝑑 𝑞
(14) 𝑢𝑞 (𝑘) 𝑠𝑑𝑖(𝑘)−𝑢𝑑 (𝑘) 𝑠𝑞𝑖 (𝑘)

𝐲̂(𝑘 + 1) = P𝐱(𝑘) + H𝐮
̂ 𝑑𝑞 (𝑘) 𝑑𝑗 = | 𝑗 𝑗 | (18)
𝑖 (𝑘) 𝑠 (𝑘)−(𝑠 (𝑘) 𝑠 𝑖 (𝑘))
𝑣𝑑𝑐 (𝑠𝑑 𝑞 𝑑 𝑞
Where
𝑑0 = 1 − 𝑑𝑖 − 𝑑𝑗 (19)
implemented to provide an online adaptation of the speed

weighting factor given at (15). The expression for 𝑄3 (𝑘)
based on the forward Euler method is given by:
𝑄3 (𝑘) = 𝑄3 (𝑘 − 1) + 𝑘𝑖 𝑇𝑠 (𝜔𝑚 ∗ (𝑘 − 1) − 𝜔𝑚 (𝑘 − 1) ) (24)
∗
Where 𝑘𝑖 is the integrator gain, 𝜔𝑚 is the reference
mechanical angular velocity, and 𝜔𝑚 is the mechanical
angular velocity. As a result, the weighting factor will be
modified to eliminate the SSE from the speed response and
to improve the speed response against load disturbances
among different operating conditions. It provides a
FIGURE 1. The proposed cost function concept. reasonable solution for the weighting factor adaptation and
is easy to implement considering the overall strategy's
va
vb calculation burden.
vc
V3 V2
va va
vb
D. EXTENDED STATE OBSERVER DESIGN
Sector II
vb
vc vc After eliminating the cascaded FOC loops, it is required to
Sector III Sector I provide the reference value for the quadrature current
V7
V4 V1
component as the speed PI controller is not given. An
V0 extended state observer is implemented to estimate the load
Sector VI
va
Sector IV
va
torque value based on the measured 𝑖𝑞 and 𝜔𝑚 [32]. The
vb
vc Sector V vb
vc observer gains have been designed based on the standard
characteristics equation of the second-order system.
V5 va
vb
V6
Considering friction coefficient 𝐵𝑦 equals zero, then the
vc
reference value for the quadrature current component 𝑖𝑞∗ can
FIGURE 2. SVPWM voltage vectors.
be calculated such as [33]:
𝑣𝑑𝑐 is the applied DC voltage, 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 5, 6 , and 𝑗 =
−2
2, 3, … , 6, 1. The 𝑠𝑠𝑞 (𝑘) matrix can be defined as: 𝑖𝑞∗ = (2𝐽2 𝜔𝑚 − 2𝐽2 𝜔𝑚
∗
− 2𝐽𝑝𝑇𝐿 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 +
3𝑝2 𝐽𝜑𝑓
(25)
1.5𝑝2 𝐽𝜑𝑓 𝑖𝑞 )
𝑠 𝑠1 + 𝑠2 𝑠2 𝑠2 + 𝑠3 𝑠3 𝑠1 + 𝑠3
𝑠𝑠𝑞 (𝑘) = [𝑠1 𝑠4 +𝑠5 𝑠5 𝑠5 + 𝑠6 𝑠6 𝑠4 + 𝑠6 ] (20)
4 Where 𝑇𝐿 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 is the estimated load torque. The block
2 diagram of the proposed strategy is illustrated in Fig. 3. The
Where 𝑠1 , 𝑠2 , 𝑠3 , 𝑠4 , 𝑠5 , and 𝑠6 equal ( cos 𝜃) ,
3 blue part combines the mathematical model and cost function
1
(− cos 𝜃 +
√3
sin 𝜃) , (− cos 𝜃 −
1 √3 2
sin 𝜃) , (− sin 𝜃) , operations, the weighting factor adapting loop is highlighted
3 3 3 3 3
1 √3 1 √3
in green, while the yellow part includes the extended state
( sin 𝜃 + cos 𝜃), and ( sin 𝜃 − cos 𝜃). The timing observer and 𝑖𝑞∗ calculations.
3 3 3 3
for the applied voltage vector can be calculated as follows
[28]: III. SIMULATION RESULTS
𝑡𝑥 = 𝑑𝑥 𝑇𝑠 (21) To assess the addressed control method and loops,
simulations were conducted using MATLAB/Simulink.
TABLE 1 lists the parameters of the surface-mounted PMSM
Where 𝑥 = 𝑖, 𝑗, or 0, then:
machine used in this analysis. Discrete-time blocks are used
𝑡𝑖 + 𝑡𝑗 + 𝑡0 = 𝑇𝑠 (22) to illustrate control methods, and the inverter's switching
model is employed to simulate the inverter at a DC bus
The final cost function will be:
voltage of 220 V. When the reference voltage is applied from
𝑔𝑀2 𝑃𝑆𝐶 = 𝑑𝑖 𝑔𝑖 + 𝑑𝑗 𝑔𝑗 (23) the controller to the machine, a step time delay is considered.
The resistive voltage drop across diodes, transistors, and the
The cost function given in (23) will be considered to find
dead time have been overlooked. Besides, 10 kHz has been
the optimal switching patterns to achieve the given 𝐮𝑑𝑞 (𝑘)
chosen for the switching frequency as an applicable value for
in (15) as presented in Fig. 1. The three-phase modulation
most of the available inverters in the market. The control
signals will be calculated based on the timing calculations in
(21) of the optimal sector as illustrated in Fig. 2. system dynamics were examined during a step change in the
mechanical load to investigate the system performance. Both
C. WEIGHTING FACTOR ADAPTATION prediction and control horizons are settled for three samples
Another improvement has been included for a more robust to provide an acceptable prediction window and calculation
operation of the proposed controller. An integrator loop is burden.
i*d v*a va
ω*e M2PSC v*b vb

Controller PMSM Encoder
i*q (Parts A, B) v*c vc
SVM Inverter
ia
id
Park ib
iq Transformation ic
Ѳe Ѳm
p
Extended State Observer

(Part D)
2
1.5p Jφf 1.5pφf
ʃ 1 2Jζωn
J
-2 2Jp -Jωn2
ʃ
3p2Jφf TL Estimated
2J2 2J2
p
ωe ωm
p d/dt
Weighting Factor Adapting Loop
(Part C)
ʃ
Q3 Adapted
FIGURE 3. The proposed M2PSC strategy.

the robust behavior based on the implemented integrator loop.
Fig. 4 shows the speed behavior of the proposed strategy, On the other hand, the torque and 𝑖𝑑𝑞 components show
PI, non-cascaded MPC, and M2PC controllers against a load better behavior during the PMSM acceleration state
torque of 2 Nm at an operating speed of 1000 RPM. Based employing the employed ESO as illustrated in Fig. 6. The
on the pole-zero cancellation technique, the PI current torque has zero SSE throughout the loading condition, while
controller has been fine-tuned. To get the highest dynamic it is 1 % without the given ESO loop. Furthermore, the 𝑖𝑑
performance for the PI controller and higher disturbance component has an SSE of 0.25 A, while it is 0.05 A through
rejection with minimal overshoot. The bandwidth has been the given ESO loop.
chosen to be 0.33 of the switching frequency, as shown by
the equations 𝑘𝑝 = 𝜔𝑜 ∗ 𝑙 and 𝑘𝑖 = 𝜔𝑜 ∗ 𝑟, given that 𝜔𝑜 is TABLE 1. PMSM Parameters
the controller bandwidth [34]. For PI and M2PC controllers,
the speed loop has been controlled using the same gains.
Symbol Parameter Value
The system has achieved faster dynamic response by
0.09485 s without overshoot or SSE for the given strategy
P Rated Power 2.3 kW
compared to 0.1021 s, 0.1387 s, and 0.1103 s for PI, MPC,
and M2PC controllers, respectively. An overshoot of 0.065 Tm Nominal Torque 15 Nm
% is noticed for the PI controller and 0.2 % for the MPC Ns Nominal Speed 1500 RPM
controller. Moreover, a step change to the load torque of 2
Iph Rated Phase Current 9.5 A
Nm has been applied at t = 0.5 s. The proposed strategy
provides an improved response against load disturbance vdc DC Link Voltage 220 V
compared to other methods. The PI controller gives under 𝑅𝑠 Phase Resistance 0.58625 Ω
and overshoots of 0.5 %, 0.08 %, and 0.1 % for MPC, while
𝐿𝑑 Direct Inductance 2.502067 mH
M2PC shows 0.17 % and 0.14 % against load variations.
The effectiveness of the implemented ESO and integrator 𝐿𝑞 Quadrature Inductance 2.53605 mH
for speed weighting factor adaptation loops have been p Pole Pairs 4
verified during the same loading and operating condition. In 𝜑𝑓 PM Flux 0.395459 Wb
Fig. 5, the system has reached the speed operating point of
1000 RPM without SSE while achieving 960 RPM without J Total Inertia 0.00277 kgm2
the online adaptation. Additionally, the speed has dropped
under loading condition leading to higher SSE in contrast to
0.09485 s
for switching frequency, prediction, and control horizons in
the simulation work are considered. An interface board is
introduced to amplify the PWM signals from the dSPACE to
the required level of the three-phase two-level IGBT SKAI
inverter at a DC bus voltage of 220 V. In addition, it provides
999.2 RPM 998.3 RPM
1005 RPM the necessary electric isolation between the power converter
and the dSPACE controller. Three-phase current
995 RPM 1001 RPM 1001.4 RPM measurements are maintained throughout LEM current
transducers. Moreover, a LEM voltage transducer is
Acceleration Loading Load Release employed for the DC bus voltage measurement. A Magtrol
State State State dynamometer system is used to brake the PMSM motor. The
proposed strategy computational time is 22.36 µs. A block
diagram for the experimental test rig is presented in Fig. 8.
Fig. 9 shows the speed response of the PI, non-cascaded
FIGURE 4. Speed response for the given strategies. MPC, M2PC, and M2PSC controllers. The proposed strategy
shows a faster dynamic response and reaches a speed of 1000
RPM without overshoot compared to 2 % for MPC, 4.9 %
𝝎𝒎 = 1000 RPM for M2PC, and 5.7 % for PI controllers. A load torque of 2
𝝎𝒎 = 960 RPM Nm is applied at t = 5 s. The proposed strategy gives a robust
𝝎𝒎 = 1000 RPM
speed response against load torque disturbance without
under or overshoot. In contrast, under and overshoots of 3.1
𝝎𝒎 = 965 RPM % and 4.6 % are noticed for PI, and 3.4 % and 5.2 % for
M2PC methods under load variations. The adaptation of the
speed weighting factor of the proposed strategy for the given
speed behavior in Fig. 9 is presented in Fig. 10. The 𝑄3 value
Loading
is adapted according to the system behavior resulting in a
Acceleration Load Release
State State State robust response for the PMSM speed, while the estimated
load torque is illustrated in Fig. 11.
Cooling Systems
FIGURE 5. The M2PSC strategy with (Blue) and without (Red) the
weighting factor adaptation. PMSM Machine Dynamometer System
dSPACE MicroLabBox
Voltage Sensor
Dynamometer Oscilloscope Power Analyzer
Current Interface System Interface
𝒊𝒅 = 0.25 A Sensors Board
𝒊𝒅 = 0.05 A Power Converter Power Supply
FIGURE 7. The experimental testing rig.
𝒊𝒒 = 3.46 A
𝒊𝒒 = 3.44 A
SSE = 1 %
2 Nm SSE = 0 %
0 Nm 0 Nm
FIGURE 6. The M2PSC strategy with (Blue) and without (Red) the ESO
loop.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
The proposed strategy has been evaluated and compared Figure 8. Block diagram of the experimental test rig.
with other controllers through the illustrated testing rig in
Fig. 7 for the same surface-mounted PMSM machine model
given in TABLE 1. The control system is developed based
on the dSPACE MicroLabBox controller. The given values
1049 RPM 1057 RPM 1033 RPM

1030 RPM
1020 RPM
969 RPM 966 RPM
1046 RPM 1052 RPM
2 Nm
0 Nm 0 Nm
Acceleration Loading Load Release

State State State
FIGURE 13. Speed step change.

FIGURE 9. The speed response against the applied torque.
Besides, Fig. 12 illustrates the current loop response of

2/div direct and quadrature components during the system loading
𝑄3 = 6.5 for the given strategies. The proposed strategy shows a zero
𝑄3 = 6.5
2.0 s/div 𝑄3 = 4 SSE for the 𝐼𝑑 component compared to 1.5 A for the MPC
controller throughout the loading condition. A speed step
FIGURE 10. Adapted Weighting factor behavior.
change is performed at t = 0.5 s from 500 to 1000 RPM
2 Nm/div considering a 2 Nm load as given in Fig. 13. The proposed
𝑇𝑙 = 2 Nm strategy shows a faster response than other methods.
2.0 s/div
Overshoots of 3 % and 3.3 % are noticed for PI and M2PC
controllers, respectively, while the MPC controller achieved
FIGURE 11. The estimated load torque. a slower response by 0.6230 s.
𝐼𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑓 5.0 A/div
B. THD ANALYSIS
𝐼𝑑 A total harmonic distortion (THD) evaluation has been
𝐼𝑞 𝑅𝑒𝑓 performed for phase "𝑎" current considering the same
2.0 s/div operating condition of 1000 RPM and 2 Nm. The proposed
𝐼𝑞 methodology shows lower current distortion with a THD
percentage of 5.65 % in contrast to 9.48 % and 7.82 % for PI
(a) and MPC controllers, respectively. However, M2PC gives a
𝐼𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑓 5.0 A/div slightly lower THD by 0.1 %. Fast Fourier transfer (FFT)
𝐼𝑑 SSE = 1.5 A analysis for the given strategies is illustrated in Fig. 14. The
THD analysis outcomes are summarized in Table 2.
𝐼𝑞 𝑅𝑒𝑓
2.0 s/div
10.0 ms/div
𝐼𝑞 PI THD = 9.48 %
(b)
2.0 A/div
i Fund = 2.063 A
f Fund = 66.67 Hz
𝐼𝑑 i 5th = 0.167 A i 7th = 0.052 A
2.29 A/div f 5th = 333.35 Hz f 7th = 466.69 Hz
100 Hz/div
2.0 s/div
𝐼𝑞
(a)
10.0 ms/div
(c) MPC THD = 7.82 %
2.0 A/div
𝐼𝑑
i Fund = 2.005 A
f Fund = 66.67 Hz i 5th = 0.186 A i 7th = 0.068 A
2.0 s/div
2.29 A/div f 5th = 333.35 Hz f 7th = 466.69 Hz
𝐼𝑞
100 Hz/div
(d)
FIGURE 12. Current loops response of (a) PI, (b) MPC, (c) M2PC, and (d) (b)
the proposed strategy.
M2PC THD = 5.55 % 10.0 ms/div M2PSC THD = 6.39 % 10.0 ms/div
2.0 A/div 2.0 A/div
i Fund = 2.1283 A i Fund = 2.144 A

f Fund = 66.67 Hz f Fund = 66.67 Hz
i 5th = 0.1071 A i 7th = 0.0176 A i 5th = 0.092 A i 7th = 0.073 A
2.29 A/div 2.29 A/div f 5th = 333.35 Hz f 7th = 466.69 Hz
f 5th = 333.35 Hz f 7th = 466.69 Hz
100 Hz/div 100 Hz/div
(c) (c)
10.0 ms/div FIGURE 15. (a) Speed response, (b) Current loops response, and (c) FFT
M2PSC THD = 5.65 %
analysis for phase "𝒂" current under parameter mismatch of 50 % for Rs
Less Distortion and 5 % for Ldq for the proposed strategy.
2.0 A/div
V. CONCLUSIONS
i Fund = 2.105 A
f Fund = 66.67 Hz A speed control method employing modulated model
i 5th = 0.079 A i 7th = 0.076 A
2.29 A/div
f 5th = 333.35 Hz f 7th = 466.69 Hz predictive control has been presented. The speed weighting
100 Hz/div factor of the cost function is online tuned to eliminate the
SSE from the speed response. Additionally, an extended state
(d) observer is provided for the load torque estimation for a more
FIGURE 14. FFT analysis of phase "𝒂" current for (a) PI, (b) MPC, (c) robust operation. The simulation and practical results prove
M2PC, and (c) the proposed strategy.
the proposed method's ability to have an error-free speed
TABLE 2. THD Analysis for the Given Strategies performance and faster dynamic response under different
Control 5th 7th operating conditions compared to predictive and PI
Fundamental THD %
Algorithm Harmonic Harmonic strategies. The weighting factor and estimated torque curves
PI 2.063 A 0.167 A 0.052 A 9.48 % proved the successful implementation of the controller loops
MPC 2.005 A 0.186 A 0.068 A 7.82 %
and reflected in system performance. Besides, the proposed
M2PC 2.1283 A 0.1071 A 0.0176 A 5.55 %
M2PSC 2.105 A 0.079 A 0.076 A 5.65 % method offered a robust behavior in the presence of a
parameter mismatch in the system model.
C. ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS
A parameter mismatch has emerged to validate the REFERENCES
proposed algorithm's robustness. The resistance value is [1] X. Lang, T. Yang, Z. Huang, Z. Wang, S. Bozhko, and P. Wheeler,
"Instantaneous Power Control Within an Advanced Power Generation
raised by 50 %, and the 𝑑𝑞 inductance components are Center for More-Electric Aircraft Applications," IEEE Trans. Transp.
reduced by 5 % from the nominal values in Table 1. Similar Electrif., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 3261–3274, 2022, doi:
performance is noticed for the speed and 𝑑𝑞 current loops in 10.1109/TTE.2021.3137399.
Fig. 15-a and Fig. 15-b, respectively, compared to the [2] A. M. Diab, S. Bozhko, M. Galea, and C. Gerada, "Stable and Robust
Design of Active Disturbance-Rejection Current Controller for
aforementioned behavior in Fig. 9 and Fig. 12-d for the Permanent Magnet Machines in Transportation Systems," IEEE Trans.
nominal parameters' operation. However, a slight increase in Transp. Electrif., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1421–1433, 2020, doi:
the THD to 6.39 % is observed as illustrated in Fig. 15-c. 10.1109/TTE.2020.3001042.
[3] A. A. A. Abdelrauf, W. W. W. Saad, A. Hebala, and M. Galea, "Model
Predictive Control Based PID Controller for PMSM for Propulsion
Systems," in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Electrical Systems
for Aircraft, Railway, Ship Propulsion and Road Vehicles &
International Transportation Electrification Conference (ESARS-
ITEC), 2018, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1109/ESARS-ITEC.2018.8607585.
[4] A. M. Diab et al., "Performance Analysis of Complex Vector Discrete
2 Nm
Current Controller for High-Speed Permanent Magnet Machines," in
2022 IEEE 17th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications
(ICIEA), 2022, pp. 590–595. doi: 10.1109/ICIEA54703.2022.10005975.
0 Nm [5] A. Aboelhassan, A. M. Diab, M. Galea, and S. Bozhko, "Investigating
0 Nm
Electrical Drive Performance Employing Model Predictive Control and
Acceleration Loading Load Release Active Disturbance Rejection Control Algorithms," in 2020 23rd
State
State State International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS),
2020, pp. 1379–1384. doi: 10.23919/ICEMS50442.2020.9291218.
[6] J. Gao, C. Gong, W. Li, and J. Liu, "Novel Compensation Strategy for
Calculation Delay of Finite Control Set Model Predictive Current
Control in PMSM," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 5816–
(a)
5819, 2020, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2019.2934060.
𝐼𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑓 5.0 A/div [7] S. Dai, J. Wang, Z. Sun, and E. Chong, "Deadbeat Predictive Current
Control for High-Speed Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine
𝐼𝑑 Drives With Low Switching-To-Fundamental Frequency Ratios," IEEE
𝐼𝑞 𝑅𝑒𝑓 Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 4510–4521, 2022, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2021.3078383.
2.0 s/div
[8] J.-W. Jung, V. Q. Leu, T. D. Do, E.-K. Kim, and H. H. Choi, "Adaptive
𝐼𝑞
PID Speed Control Design for Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor
Drives," IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 900–908,
(b)
2015, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2014.2311462. Transp. Electrif., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 878–890, 2017, doi:
[9] J. Xia, Z. Li, D. Yu, Y. Guo, and X. Zhang, "Robust Speed and Current 10.1109/TTE.2017.2731626.
Control With Parametric Adaptation for Surface-Mounted PMSM [27]L. Tarisciotti, P. Zanchetta, A. Watson, J. C. Clare, M. Degano, and S.
Considering System Perturbations," IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Bifaretti, "Modulated Model Predictive Control for a Three-Phase
Electron., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2807–2817, 2021, doi: Active Rectifier," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 1610–1620,
10.1109/JESTPE.2020.3015288. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2014.2339397.
[10]T.-I. Yeam and D.-C. Lee, "Design of Sliding-Mode Speed Controller [28]M. Vijayagopal, P. Zanchetta, L. Empringham, L. de Lillo, L. Tarisciotti,
With Active Damping Control for Single-Inverter Dual-PMSM Drive and P. Wheeler, "Control of a Direct Matrix Converter With Modulated
Systems," IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 5794–5801, Model-Predictive Control," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 53, no. 3, pp.
2021, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2020.3028601. 2342–2349, 2017, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2017.2674602.
[11]P. Lin, Z. Wu, K.-Z. Liu, and X.-M. Sun, "A Class of Linear–Nonlinear [29]M. Ayala, J. Doval-Gandoy, J. Rodas, O. Gonzalez, R. Gregor, and M.
Switching Active Disturbance Rejection Speed and Current Controllers Rivera, "A Novel Modulated Model Predictive Control Applied to Six-
for PMSM," IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 14366– Phase Induction Motor Drives," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 68, no.
14382, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2021.3086273. 5, pp. 3672–3682, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2020.2984425.
[12]F. Bu et al., "Speed Ripple Reduction of Direct-Drive PMSM Servo [30]A. Aboelhassan, W. El Sayed, A. Hebala, M. Galea, and S. Bozhko,
System at Low-Speed Operation Using Virtual Cogging Torque Control "Fault Tolerant Control Strategy Based on Model Predictive Control
Method," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 160–174, 2021, and Unscented Kalman Filter for Permanent Magnet Synchronous
doi: 10.1109/TIE.2019.2962400. Motor," in 2021 IEEE 16th Conference on Industrial Electronics and
[13]M. F. Elmorshedy, W. Xu, F. F. M. El-Sousy, M. R. Islam, and A. A. Applications (ICIEA), 2021, pp. 153–159. doi:
Ahmed, "Recent Achievements in Model Predictive Control 10.1109/ICIEA51954.2021.9516257.
Techniques for Industrial Motor: A Comprehensive State-of-the-Art," [31]A. Aboelhassan, M. Abdelgeliel, E. E. Zakzouk, and M. Galea, "Design
IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 58170–58191, 2021, doi: and Implementation of Model Predictive Control Based PID Controller
10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3073020. for Industrial Applications," Energies, vol. 13, no. 24, p. 6594, Dec.
[14]P. Kakosimos and H. Abu-Rub, "Predictive Speed Control With Short 2020, doi: 10.3390/en13246594.
Prediction Horizon for Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Drives," [32]Z. Kuang, B. Du, S. Cui, and C. C. Chan, "Speed Control of Load
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 2740–2750, 2018, doi: Torque Feedforward Compensation Based on Linear Active
10.1109/TPEL.2017.2697971. Disturbance Rejection for Five-Phase PMSM," IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp.
[15]M. Liu et al., "Dual Cost Function Model Predictive Direct Speed 159787–159796, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2950368.
Control With Duty Ratio Optimization for PMSM Drives," IEEE Access, [33]C. Garcia, J. Rodriguez, S. Odhano, P. Zanchetta, and S. A. Davari,
vol. 8, pp. 126637–126647, 2020, doi: "Modulated Model Predictive Speed Control for PMSM Drives," in
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007627. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Electrical Systems for Aircraft,
[16]M. Shao, Y. Deng, H. Li, J. Liu, and Q. Fei, "Robust Speed Control for Railway, Ship Propulsion and Road Vehicles & International
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors Using a Generalized Transportation Electrification Conference (ESARS-ITEC), 2018, pp. 1–
Predictive Controller With a High-Order Terminal Sliding-Mode 6. doi: 10.1109/ESARS-ITEC.2018.8607701.
Observer," IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 121540–121551, 2019, doi: [34]A. M. Diab et al., "Fast and Simple Tuning Rules of Synchronous
10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2937535. Reference Frame Proportional-Integral Current Controller," IEEE
[17]K. Wróbel, P. Serkies, and K. Szabat, "Model Predictive Base Direct Access, vol. 9, pp. 22156–22170, 2021, doi:
Speed Control of Induction Motor Drive—Continuous and Finite Set 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3054845.
Approaches," Energies, vol. 13, no. 5. 2020. doi: 10.3390/en13051193.
[18]F. Wang, X. Mei, J. Rodriguez, and R. Kennel, "Model predictive AHMED ABOELHASSAN (Member, IEEE)
control for electrical drive systems-an overview," CES Trans. Electr. received the M.Sc. degree in Electrical and
Mach. Syst., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 219–230, 2017, doi: Control Engineering from the Arab Academy for
10.23919/TEMS.2017.8086100. Science, Technology, and Maritime Transport
[19]A. A. Abdelrauf, M. Abdel-Geliel and, E. Zakzouk, M. Abdel-Geliel, (AASTMT), Alexandria, Egypt, and the Ph.D.
and E. Zakzouk, "Adaptive PID controller based on model predictive degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering
control," in 2016 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, 2016, pp.
from the University of Nottingham, Ningbo,
746–751. doi: 10.1109/ECC.2016.7810378.
China in 2016 and 2023, respectively.
[20]L. M. A. Caseiro, A. M. S. Mendes, and S. M. A. Cruz, "Dynamically
Weighted Optimal Switching Vector Model Predictive Control of He joined AASTMT in 2014 as an Assistant
Power Converters," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 66, no. 2, pp. Lecturer. His research interests include model-
1235–1245, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2018.2829689. based control algorithms, electrical drive applications, renewable energy
[21]S. Vazquez et al., "An Artificial Intelligence Approach for Real-Time systems, and industrial control.
Tuning of Weighting Factors in FCS-MPC for Power Converters,"
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., p. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2021.3127046. SHUO WANG (Member, IEEE) received the
[22]C. R. Baier, R. O. Ramirez, E. I. Marciel, J. C. Hernández, P. E. Melín, Ph.D. degree in control science and engineering
and E. E. Espinosa, "FCS-MPC Without Steady-State Error Applied to from Tongji University, Shanghai, China, in 2019.
a Grid-Connected Cascaded H-Bridge Multi-level Inverter," IEEE From 2017 to 2018, he became a Visiting
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 11785–11799, 2021, doi: Researcher with Power Electronics, Machines and
10.1109/TPEL.2021.3065003. Control Group, University of Nottingham,
[23]D. Ye, J. Li, J. Chen, R. Qu, and L. Xiao, "Study on Steady-State Errors Nottingham, U.K. He is currently working as a
for Asymmetrical Six-Phase Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine Senior Research Fellow with the University of
Fault-Tolerant Predictive Current Control," IEEE Trans. Power Nottingham, Ningbo, China. His research interests
Electron., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 640–651, 2020, doi:
include high-performance torque control,
10.1109/TPEL.2019.2912300.
sensorless control, and ﬂux-weakening control used for permanent magnet
[24]A. Aboelhassan, S. Wang, Y. Mikhaylov, G. Buticchi, M. Galea, and S.
Bozhko, "Discontinuous Modulated Model Predictive Control for Low synchronous machines, synchronous reluctance machines, and permanent
Inductance High-Speed Electric Drive Applications," IEEE Trans. Ind. magnet-assisted synchronous reluctance machines.
Electron., pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2023.3301532.
[25]Q. Wang et al., "A Low-Complexity Optimal Switching Time-
Modulated Model-Predictive Control for PMSM With Three-Level
NPC Converter," IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1188–
1198, 2020.
[26]S. S. Yeoh, T. Yang, L. Tarisciotti, C. I. Hill, S. Bozhko, and P.
Zanchetta, "Permanent-Magnet Machine-Based Starter–Generator
System With Modulated Model Predictive Control," IEEE Trans.
GIAMPAOLO BUTICCHI (Senior Member,

IEEE) received the M.Sc. degree in electronic
engineering and the Ph.D. degree in information
technologies from the University of Parma,
Parma, Italy, in 2009 and 2013, respectively.
In 2012, he was the Visiting Researcher with the
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, U.K.
Between 2014 and 2017, he was a Postdoctoral
Researcher with the University of Kiel, Kiel,
Germany. He is currently a Professor of Electrical
Engineering with the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China.
VASYL VARVOLIK (Member, IEEE) received

the B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering
from the National Technical University of
Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic
Institute", Ukraine in 2016 and 2018,
respectively. He is currently working toward a
Ph.D. degree at the University of Nottingham,
Ningbo, China. His research interests include
high-fidelity simulation, parameter
identification, torque ripple reduction, high-performance control of
synchronous reluctance and permanent magnet synchronous motor drives.
MICHAEL GALEA (Senior Member, IEEE)

Michael Galea (Senior Member, IEEE) received
the Ph.D. degree in electrical machine design
from the University of Nottingham, Nottingham,
U.K., in 2013.
He was a Full Professor of Electrical Machines
and Drives with the University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, U.K., in 2019. He is currently a
Professor with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, University of Malta, Malta.
SERHIY BOZHKO (Senior Member, IEEE)

received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in
electromechanical systems from the National
Technical University of Ukraine, Kyiv City,
Ukraine, in 1987 and 1994, respectively.
Since 2000, he has been with the Power
Electronics, Machines and Controls Research
Group, University of Nottingham, Nottingham,
U.K., where he is currently a Professor of Aircraft
Electric Power Systems.

Modulated Model Predictive Speed Controller For PMSM Drives Employing Voltage Based Cost Function

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Modulated Model Predictive Speed Controller For PMSM Drives Employing Voltage Based Cost Function

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modulated Model Predictive Speed Controller For PMSM Drives Employing Voltage Based Cost Function

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Open Journal of the Industrial Electronics Society.

Modulated Model Predictive Speed

Corresponding author: Shuo Wang (shuo.wang@nottingham.edu.cn).

I. INTRODUCTION the power electronics converter as modulation signals are

However, the model computational burden should be 𝑑 1 (1)

different operating conditions for a more robust speed 1⁄ 0

This model is discretized with a definite sampling time 𝑇𝑠 𝐱(𝑘 + 1) A

B. THE COST FUNCTION

(14) 𝑢𝑞 (𝑘) 𝑠𝑑𝑖(𝑘)−𝑢𝑑 (𝑘) 𝑠𝑞𝑖 (𝑘)

implemented to provide an online adaptation of the speed

ω*e M2PSC v*b vb

Extended State Observer

FIGURE 3. The proposed M2PSC strategy.

𝒊𝒅 = 0.05 A Power Converter Power Supply

FIGURE 7. The experimental testing rig.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

1049 RPM 1057 RPM 1033 RPM

1046 RPM 1052 RPM

Acceleration Loading Load Release

FIGURE 13. Speed step change.

Besides, Fig. 12 illustrates the current loop response of

𝐼𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑓 5.0 A/div

2.0 A/div 2.0 A/div

i Fund = 2.1283 A i Fund = 2.144 A

GIAMPAOLO BUTICCHI (Senior Member,

VASYL VARVOLIK (Member, IEEE) received

MICHAEL GALEA (Senior Member, IEEE)

SERHIY BOZHKO (Senior Member, IEEE)

You might also like

ωe M2PSC vb vb