See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264743946

Model Predictive Torque Control of Induction Motor Drives With Optimal Duty
Cycle Control

Article in IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics · December 2014

DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2014.2302838

CITATIONS READS
410 1,885

2 authors, including:

Yongchang Zhang
North China University of Technology
211 PUBLICATIONS 9,113 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yongchang Zhang on 12 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2014 6593

Model Predictive Torque Control of Induction Motor

Drives With Optimal Duty Cycle Control
Yongchang Zhang, Member, IEEE, and Haitao Yang

Abstract—Model predictive torque control (MPTC) is emerg- cle control [7], [10], [11], and model predictive torque control
ing as a powerful control scheme for high performance control of (MPTC) [12]–[15]. Among these methods, MPTC was recently
induction motor (IM) drives. Compared to direct torque control, introduced as an effective alternative to the conventional DTC
MPTC is more effective and accurate in voltage vector selection by
incorporating the system model directly with the finite switching and has drawn increased attention from both academic and in-
states. However, for two-level inverter-fed IM drives, the sampling dustrial communities [16]–[22].
frequency of MPTC has to be high to achieve good performance Compared to DTC, as the heuristic switching table is replaced
due to the limited number of voltage vectors. Recently, the con- by an accurate system model, MPTC can directly predict the
cept of duty cycle control was introduced in MPTC by inserting a evolution of variables concerned, such as torque and stator flux.
null vector along with the selected active voltage vector to achieve
torque ripple reduction. The active vector is first selected from By evaluating the influence of each possible voltage vector, the
conventional MPTC and then its duration is determined based on one minimizing the torque and flux errors is selected as the best
a certain principle. The cascaded processing of active vector and voltage vector. Hence, it is evident that the vector selected from
its duration leads to poor low-speed performance and the sampling MPTC is more accurate and effective than that from conven-
frequency still has to be high. This paper proposes an improved tional DTC [21]. Furthermore, the flexibility of MPTC allows
MPTC with duty cycle control by optimizing the vector selection
and its duration simultaneously when minimizing both torque and the controller to include various nonlinearities and impose con-
flux errors. As a result, better steady-state performance at both low straints on control variables [22], [23]. The application of MPTC
and high speeds is achieved, even if the sampling frequency is re- in motor drives has been investigated extensively. In [22], the au-
duced by half. The effectiveness of the proposed MPTC is verified thors developed an accurate discrete time state-space model for
by both simulation and experimental results. induction motor (IM) and imposed a current constraint in cost
Index Terms—Induction motor (IM), model predictive torque function to prevent overcurrent. To eliminate the weighting fac-
control (MPTC), ripple reduction. tor tuning, a multiobjective optimization based on a ranking ap-
proach is performed in [17]. The application of MPTC in three-
I. INTRODUCTION level inverter-fed high power drives have also been investigated
OR variable speed drives requiring high performance in [14], [21], where a hysteresis based MPTC was proposed to
F torque control, direct torque control (DTC) is a popular
and powerful control scheme [1]–[3]. It directly selects the suit-
keep torque, stator flux, and neutral point potential within their
hysteresis bounds while minimizing the switching frequency.
able voltage vector from a predefined switching table according To achieve satisfactory steady-state performance in the case
to the position of stator flux and error signs of both torque and of a two-level inverter-fed IM drive, the sampling frequency of
flux. Very quick dynamic response can be obtained in DTC conventional MPTC has to be high. This would impose a high
with simple structure [4], [5]. The major drawbacks of conven- computational burden on the hardware, which is undesirable in
tional DTC are high torque, flux ripples, and variable switching the real-time implementation. Although MPTC is more accurate
frequency [6]–[8]. To address these problems, some strategies and effective than DTC in vector selection, applying the selected
have been investigated during the past decades, e.g., utilizing voltage vector during the whole control period is not optimal in
space vector modulation (SVM) [4], [9], incorporating duty cy- terms of torque ripple reduction [19], [24]. In DTC, it has been
known that inserting a zero-voltage vector along with an active
voltage vector during one control period can achieve moder-
ate and accurate torque regulation [7], [10], [11]. This concept
Manuscript received September 6, 2013; revised December 12, 2013; ac- of duty cycle control was recently proposed to be applied in
cepted January 23, 2014. Date of publication January 27, 2014; date of current MPTC [19], [24]. In [19], the principle of torque ripple mini-
version August 13, 2014. This work was sponsored in part by the National Natu-
ral Science Foundation of China under Grants 51207003 and 51347004, in part mization is introduced to calculate the optimal weighting factor,
by the Beijing Nova Program under Grant xx2013001, in part by the Scientific and the control period is divided into two intervals to achieve
Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Educa- further torque ripple reduction. The equation to obtain the opti-
tion Ministry, in part by the Chongqing Natural Science Foundation under Grant
cstc2012jjB107, and in part by the Open Research Fund from Key Laboratory mal weighting factor is complicated and parameter dependent.
of Special Power Supply under Grants MSPS2012-03 and MSPS2013-02. Rec- Similar method was proposed in [24], which also divides the
ommended for publication by Associate Editor Dr. J. R. Rodriguez. control period into two intervals. The principle of torque ripple
The authors are with the Power Electronics and Motor Drives Engineering
Research Center of Beijing, North China University of Technology, Beijing minimization is employed to calculate the duration of the ac-
100144, China (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]). tive vector and a fixed weighting factor is used. Although better
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online steady-state performance than conventional MPTC is claimed
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPEL.2014.2302838 in both [19] and [24], the results are obtained under the same

0885-8993 © 2014 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.
6594 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2014

sampling frequency as that of conventional MPTC. Further-

more, the active vector selection is first executed and then its
duration is calculated. This cascaded processing leads to relative
poor low-speed performance, as shown in [24].
This paper proposes an improved MPTC with optimal duty
cycle control, which is able to achieve better steady-state perfor-
mance with much lower sampling frequency. Different from [19]
and [24], which optimizes vector selection and duty ratio sepa-
rately, this paper does these optimizations simultaneously. This
is based on the consideration that the active vector selected
from conventional MPTC may be no longer than the optimal
Fig. 1. Control diagram of the proposed MPTC.
one when a zero voltage vector is inserted along with it. The
duration of the active vector is obtained based on the princi-
ple of deadbeat torque control, which is also different from the dicted state vector for stator current and stator flux. The main
torque ripple minimization strategy in [24]. To ensure good per- difference between xp (k + 1) and x(k + 1) is that xp (k + 1) is
formance of MPTC in practical application, accurate stator flux calculated as a rough approximation of x(k + 1) in the first step,
and torque estimation are essential. In this paper, a full order which is equivalent to forward Euler integration. The value of
observer with constant gain matrix [5] is adopted due to its xp (k + 1) is refined in the second step to obtain more accurate
accuracy over a wide speed range. Furthermore, control delay result of x(k + 1), which is equivalent to trapezoidal integra-
caused by digital processing is compensated and the strategy tion method [26]. It is possible to use more advanced method to
of preexcitation is implemented to avoid large starting current obtain accurate discretization of (1), such as Cayley–Hamilton
while obtaining sufficient starting torque. The proposed MPTC theorem in [22], but the computation burden will be significantly
with duty cycle is compared with conventional MPTC and the increased, so it is not adopted in this paper.
improved MPTC in [24]. Simulation and experimental results The electromagnetic torque can be predicted as
prove that, better steady-state performance is achieved for the
3
proposed MPTC especially in the low-speed range, even if the Te (k + 1) = Np ψ s (k + 1) ⊗ is (k + 1) (5)
2
sampling frequency is reduced by half.
where Np is the number of pole pairs and ⊗ represents cross
II. DYNAMIC EQUATIONS OF IM product.
Omitting the tedious deduction process, the differentiation of
The dynamic equations of IM with stator flux ψ s and stator
torque Te with respect to time t can be obtained from (1) and
currents is as state variables can be expressed in stationary frame
(5) as [7], [10]
as [5], [24]
dTe
ẋ = Ax + Bu (1) = 1.5Np λLm [−λ (Rs Lr + Rr Ls ) Im (ψ ∗r ψ s )
dt
where x = [ is ψ s ]T are state variables, u = us is the stator −ωr Re (ψ ∗r ψ s ) + Im (ψ ∗r us )] (6)
voltage vector, and
  where ∗ represents the conjugation of a complex vector. The
−λ(Rs Lr + Rr Ls ) + jωr λ(Rr − jLr ωr )
A= (2) equation in (6) provides a practical method to calculate the slope
−Rs 0 of torque, which is useful for the aim of improving torque perfor-
  mance in Section III. For simplicity, the torque slope caused by
λLr
B= (3) a zero vector u0 and a nonzero voltage vector ui are represented
1
by s0 and si , respectively, which are expressed as
Rs , Rr stator resistance, rotor resistance
dTe
Ls , Lr , Lm stator inductance, rotor inductance and mutual s0 = |u =0 = 1.5Np λLm [−λ (Rs Lr + Rr Ls ) Im (ψ ∗r ψ s )
inductance dt s
ωr electrical
 rotor speed
 −ωr Re (ψ ∗r ψ s )] (7)
λ = 1/ Ls Lr − L2m .
dTe
si = |u =u = s0 + 1.5Np λLm Im (ψ ∗r ui ) . (8)
The prediction of the stator current and stator flux at the next dt s i
sampling instant can be obtained from (1). To ensure good ac-
curacy of the prediction, second-order Euler discretization is III. PROPOSED MPTC WITH OPTIMAL DUTY CYCLE CONTROL
employed to discretize (1), which is expressed as [25] The overall control diagram of the proposed MPTC is shown
 in Fig. 1. It can be seen that the torque reference is generated
xp (k + 1) = x(k) + Tsc (Ax(k) + Bus (k))
(4) by an external speed control loop and the stator flux amplitude
x(k + 1) = xp (k + 1) + T2s c A (xp (k + 1) − x(k))
reference is kept constant because the flux-weakening operation
where Tsc is control period; xp (k + 1) is predictor-corrector is not considered in this paper. The detailed information about
of state vector; x(k + 1) = [ is (k + 1) ψ s (k + 1) ]T is pre- this control diagram will be described in the following sections.
ZHANG AND YANG: MODEL PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL OF INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVES WITH OPTIMAL DUTY CYCLE CONTROL 6595

A. Flux and Torque Estimation

Accurate estimation of flux and torque is essential to ensure
good performance of MPTC. In this paper, a full order observer
is adopted due to its accuracy over a wide speed range. By
introducing the error feedback of stator current, the accuracy of
estimation is increased and the observer is more robust against
the motor parameter variations. The mathematical model of the
observer is based on the IM model in (1), which is expressed as
dx̂  
= Ax̂ + Bu + G is − iˆs (9)
dt
where x̂ = [ îs ψ̂ s ]T are the estimated state variables.
In classical observer for IM drives, the poles of observer are Fig. 2. Voltage vectors and corresponding switching states of the two-level
designed to be proportional to the poles of IM (factor k > 1) inverter.
[27], which produces high imaginary part at high speed and
is harmful to the system stability. To address this issue, it is
control complexity reduction. To predict the torque at (k + 1)th
suggested to shift the real part of observer poles to the left in the
instant without the prediction of stator current, (5) is replaced
complex plane compared to the poles of IM, and the imaginary
by [19], [29]
part of observer poles are not changed [28]. However, this leads
to complicated expressions of observer gains. In this paper, a 3
Te (k + 1) = Np ψ s (k + 1) ⊗ isλ (k) (13)
very simple constant gain matrix G is employed to improve 2
stability of the observer, which is expressed as [5] where isλ (k) is calculated based on the variables at kth instant
 
2b isλ (k) = (1 − λRr Ls Tsc + jωr Tsc ) is (k)
G=− (10)
b/(λLr ) + λ (Rr Tsc − Lr − jωr Lr Tsc ) ψ s (k) . (14)
where b is a negative constant gain. This pole placement method By using (13) and (14), prediction of stator current is (k + 1)
can improve the convergence and stability of observer especially is no longer needed for obtaining Te (k), hence reducing the
at high speed and is simple to implement, so it is adopted in this calculation burden.
paper. 2) Proposed MPTC: There are eight discrete voltage vectors
available: u0 , u1 . . . u7 for a two-level inverter-fed IM drive, as
B. Vector Selection and Duty Ratio Determination show in Fig. 2. In conventional MPTC, the voltage vectors which
1) Conventional MPTC: In conventional MPTC [22], the minimizes the cost function (11) will be selected and applied
stator flux and electromagnetic torque at (k + 1)th instant are during the whole control period. Due to the limited voltage
predicted using predictive model shown in (1), with the variables vectors in the two-level inverter, the sampling frequency has to
of is (k) and ψ s (k) as the initial states. The aim is to force both be high to achieve good steady-state performance. In fact, the
stator flux and torque to track their respective reference value. torque performance can be further improved by dividing the
In other word, the error between estimated value and reference control period into two intervals for one active vector and one
value of stator flux and torque should be minimized. This is appropriate zero vector, as shown in [19], [24]. However, the
defined as a cost function, which is expressed as vector is first selected according to the principle of conventional
MPTC, and then the duration of the active vector is determined
J = Teref − Te (k + 1) + kψ ψ ref
s | − |ψ s (k + 1)| (11) based on certain principle, such as torque ripple minimization in
where kψ denotes the weighting factor for stator flux. To assign [24]. The separate processing of vector selection and its duration
the same weight on torque and stator flux, kψ is usually chosen cannot ensure the performance improvement over conventional
as MPTC at all speeds. In fact, as shown in [24], the low-speed
Tn performance of MPTC with duty cycle control is not satisfactory
kψ = (12) at low speed. The reason lies in that the fact that the selected
|ψsn |
vector is optimal only makes sense when it is applied in the
where Tn is the rated torque and |ψsn | is the rated amplitude whole control period. When a zero vector is inserted along with
of stator flux. It should be noted that the weighting factor kψ the active vector and the duration of the active vector changes, it
in (12) is only used as a starting point for tuning work, and the may no longer remain optimal in minimizing the errors of torque
final practical value of kψ may be larger than that in (12), as and stator flux. In other words, the vector selection and its duty
shown in [20]. ratio must be determined simultaneously when evaluating the
As can be seen from the first row of matrix A in (2), the cost function in (11). This is the basic principle of the proposed
prediction of is (k + 1) is complicated. As the stator current is MPTC with optimal duty cycle control.
not directly used in the cost function of conventional MPTC, In this paper, the duty ratio of the active voltage vector is
the prediction of stator current may be eliminated for the aim of obtained based on the principle of deadbeat control of torque
6596 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2014

[11], [30]. The reason of choosing deadbeat fashion is that it

is consistent with the definition of cost function in (11), which
is composed of linear combination of control variable errors
between actual value and reference for the purpose of reference
tracking. On the contrary, other kinds of duty ratio optimization
methods, like torque ripple minimization [7], [10] and mean
torque control [31], are not in accordance to the aim of reference
tracking in the cost function. Furthermore, the expressions of
duty ratio obtained from mean torque control is relatively com-
plex and time consuming, which is unfavorable for real-time
implementation [10], [11], [31]. So, in this paper, the simple
deadbeat torque control is adopted.
According to the principle of deadbeat torque control, the
torque at (k + 1)th instant should reach its reference value Teref
when the selected voltage vector ui is applied for a fraction of
control period. This is expressed as
Te (k + 1) = Te (k) + si topt + s0 (Tsc − topt ) = Teref (15)
where topt is the optimal duration of the active vector; s0 and si
are the torque slope caused by a zero vector u0 and a nonzero
voltage vector ui , as introduced in (7) and (8).
Solving (15), the optimal duration topt for the active vector
can be obtained as [11]
Teref − Te (k) − s0 Tsc
topt = . (16)
si − s0
Fig. 3. Flow chart of the proposed MPTC with the consideration of time-delay
It should be noted that the optimal duration topt is limited to the compensation.
range of [0, Tsc ] in practical application [11].
For two-level inverter, there are six active voltage vectors conventional MPTC, such as the notion of optimality, flexibility
ui (i = 1 . . . . .6), as shown in Fig. 2. For each active vector, to incorporate constrains in cost function, etc.
the duration ti is first determined using (16). The active vector
ui multiplied by its duration ti is used as voltage input in (1) C. Digital Delay Compensation
to obtain the torque and stator flux at (k + 1)th instant, which
In real-time implementation, one-step delay between the com-
are subsequently evaluated using cost function (11). The one
manding voltage and the real voltage caused by digital process-
minimizing the cost function is selected as the best voltage
ing will deteriorate the performance of MPTC [20], [22], [32].
vector and it will be applied for its optimal duration in the
To compensate this delay, the variables at (k + 2)th instant
next control period. Compared to the MPTC with separate duty
rather than (k + 1)th instant should be predicted for the evalua-
cycle control in [24], the proposed MPTC is more accurate and
tion of the cost function. In this paper, a model-based prediction
effective for active vector selection due to the consideration of
is adopted to diminish the influence of the time delay. The stator
its duration in the cost function evaluation.
current and stator flux at kth instant are first estimated, as intro-
3) Relationship Between MPTC and Deadbeat Control: In
duced in Section III-A, which provides initial values for the state
essence, the proposed MPTC can be considered as a deadbeat
variables at (k + 1)th instant. The predictions of is (k + 1) and
controller as it tries to minimize the error between the reference
ψ s (k + 1) are subsequently executed according to (4). The fi-
and feedback value at the end of next step. However, due to the
nal value of ψ s (k + 2) and Te (k + 2) are obtained from (4) and
limited voltage vectors, generally it cannot achieve “deadbeat
(13) by replacing the kth and (k+1)th variables with the (k+1)th
control” in true sense. In this situation, applying the selected
and (k+2)th variables. Note that the prediction of is (k + 2) is
optimal voltage vector for an optimal duration topt to minimize
no longer required due to the simplification in (13). After com-
both the torque and flux errors is what the proposed MPTC
pensation of the one-step delay, the final cost function in (11)
can offer. Conventional deadbeat torque control calculates the
should be updated with the variables at (k+2)th instant. The
reference voltage vector which forces feedback value equal to
overall flow chart of the proposed MPTC with optimal duty cy-
its reference at the end of next step and then a modulation
cle control considering one-step delay compensation is shown
stage (such as SVM) is used to synthesis the reference voltage
in Fig. 3.
vector. Compared to conventional deadbeat torque control, the
proposed MPTC takes the discrete nature of power converters
D. Decreasing Starting Current
into account and selects the best voltage vector by minimizing
a predefined cost function. Hence, no modulation stage is re- As the stator current is not directly controlled by MPTC,
quired. Furthermore, it also presents some merits inherited from starting the IM directly without current limitations may result
ZHANG AND YANG: MODEL PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL OF INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVES WITH OPTIMAL DUTY CYCLE CONTROL 6597

TABLE I
CONTROL AND MACHINE PARAMETERS

in large start-up stator current when a high starting torque is

required. To decrease the starting current and maintain sufficient (a)
starting torque, the stator flux should be first established. The
process of machine magnetization is called preexcitation, which
is achieved by the current chopping control. During the process
of preexcitation, if the current exceeds the limitation setting, a
zero vector will be applied to reduce the current; otherwise a
fixed active vector will be applied to establish the stator flux.
When the amplitude of stator flux reaches the expected value,
which is set as 95% of the reference stator flux amplitude in this
paper, the process of preexcitation terminates and the motor can
start safely with sufficient torque [5].

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

To validate the effectiveness of the proposed MPTC with
optimal duty cycle control, simulations were done in the en-
vironment of MATLAB/Simulink. The results obtained from (b)
conventional single-vector-based MPTC [22] and the improved
MPTC with separate duty cycle control [24] are also presented
for the aim of comparison. For convenience, the prior method
in [24] is referred as MPTC I, and the proposed scheme in this
paper is referred as MPTC II in the following text. It should
be noted that, to be consistent with the cost function definition
and for the aim of fair comparison, the duty ratio determination
method of torque ripple minimization in MPTC I is replaced
by deadbeat torque control in this paper. This change has very
minor influence on the performance of MPTC I.
The overall control diagram and the flow chart of the algo-
rithm have been presented in Figs. 1 and 3, respectively. The
machine and control parameters are listed in Table I. The stator
flux reference is kept at 0.94 Wb, slightly lower than the rated
value to avoid magnetic saturation. As weighting factor kψ in
the cost function is the only parameter to adjust in MPTC, some (c)
tuning work has to be done to select the most appropriate value Fig. 4. Simulated steady-state responses at 150 r/min with rated load for
of kψ . However, currently the selection of weighting factor is (a) conventional MPTC, (b) MPTC I, and (c) MPTC II.
still an open problem and usually determined by a heuristic pro-
cedure [17], [20]. The final value of the weighing factor kψ is
set to 100 in this paper, which is based on extensive simulations formance due to the simultaneous processing of vector selection
and experimental tests and applied to all three MPTC methods. and its duty ratio.
To confirm the superiority of MPTC II, the sampling frequency Fig. 4 presents the simulated steady-state responses at
is set to 10 kHz, while the sampling frequency of conventional 150 r/min with rated load for conventional MPTC, MPTC I,
MPTC and MPTC I is 20 kHz. In spite of the much lower and MPTC II. From top to bottom, the curves shown in Fig. 4
sampling frequency, MPTC II exhibits better steady-state per- are electromagnetic torque, stator flux amplitude, and one-phase
6598 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2014

(a)
Fig. 6. Selected nonzero vector for both MPTC I and MPTC II during stepped
torque change.

in terms of torque and flux ripples and stator current harmonics,

which confirms the effectiveness of incorporating the duty ratio
in the cost function evaluation when selecting the best voltage
vector. The steady-state responses at a high speed of 1500 r/min
with rated load are shown in Fig. 5. It is seen that both MPTC
I and MPTC II exhibit much better performance in terms of re-
duced torque and flux ripples as well as lower current harmonics,
while the performance difference between MPTC I and MPTC
II is insignificant. However, considering the relatively low sam-
pling frequency, it is concluded that the proposed MPTC II still
presents the best performance. The responses at various speed
are tested and presented in Section V.
(b)
A close observation into the difference in the selected nonzero
vector for both MPTC I and MPTC II is shown in Fig. 6, where
a rated torque load is applied to the machine. Both MPTC I
and MPTC II run in parallel at 10-kHz sampling frequency, but
only MPTC II is used in the closed-loop speed control of IM
drives. It is clearly seen that there are noticeable differences in
the number of selected nonzero vector for these two methods,
validating that simultaneous optimization of both voltage vector
and its duration in MPTC II leads to different (generally more
effective) voltage vectors compared to MPTC I.

V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Apart from simulation study, the proposed MPTC is exper-
imentally tested on a two-level inverter-fed IM drive platform.
(c) The control and system parameters are the same as those listed
in Table I. The results obtained from conventional MPTC and
Fig. 5. Simulated steady-state responses at 1500 r/min with rated load for MPTC I are also presented for the aim of comparison. The sam-
(a) conventional MPTC, (b) MPTC I, and (c) MPTC II.
pling frequencies of conventional MPTC, MPTC I, and MPTC II
are 20, 20, and 10 kHz, respectively. In the following tests,
stator current. It is seen that the conventional MPTC presents all variables are displayed on digital oscilloscope via onboard
relatively large torque ripple and there are much current har- digital-to-analog (DA) converter except the stator current, which
monics. The torque ripple is much reduced in MPTC I, but is measured directly by a current probe.
irregular ripples appear in stator flux. This is due to the fact Fig. 7 presents the steady-state responses at 150 r/min for
that the selected voltage vector from conventional MPTC is no conventional MPTC, MPTC I, and MPTC II. It is seen that both
longer the best one when its duty ratio is separately determined. MPTC I and MPTC II present much lower torque ripple than
The proposed MPTC exhibits the best steady-state performance that of conventional MPTC, especially in MPTC II. However,
ZHANG AND YANG: MODEL PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL OF INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVES WITH OPTIMAL DUTY CYCLE CONTROL 6599

(a)
(a)

(b)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 8. Harmonics spectrum of stator current at 150 r/min for (a) conven-
tional MPTC at 20-kHz sampling frequency, (b) MPTC I at 20-kHz sampling
(c) frequency, and (c) MPTC II at 10-kHz sampling frequency.

Fig. 7. Steady-state response at 150 r/min for (a) conventional MPTC at

20-kHz sampling frequency, (b) MPTC I at 20-kHz sampling frequency, and
(c) MPTC II at 10-kHz sampling frequency.
current are eliminated in MPTC II, validating the effectiveness
of considering the duty ratio in the cost function evaluation. It
the stator current of MPTC I is somewhat distorted and there is should be noted there are some glitches in the curve of torque in
slight oscillations in stator flux, which is in accordance to the Fig. 7, which are mainly caused by the noise and limited reso-
simulation results. This confirms that failing to consider the duty lution of onboard DA converter. Nevertheless, it is still clear to
ratio in the cost function evaluation will deteriorate the steady- investigate the performance difference among various methods.
state performance, although the torque ripple is reduced. On the The stator current measured directly from a current probe also
contrary, the oscillation in stator flux and distortion in stator confirms the comparative study.
6600 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2014

(a)
(a)

(b) (b)

(c)
(c)
Fig. 10. High-speed operation at 1500 r/min with rated torque for (a) conven-
Fig. 9. Low-speed operation at 150 r/min with rated torque for (a) conven- tional MPTC at 20-kHz sampling frequency, (b) MPTC I at 20-kHz sampling
tional MPTC at 20-kHz sampling frequency, (b) MPTC I at 20-kHz sampling frequency, and (c) MPTC II at 10-kHz sampling frequency.
frequency, and (c) MPTC II at 10-kHz sampling frequency.

The harmonic spectrum of stator current at 150 r/min without

load is shown in Fig. 8. The data of stator current are acquired of MPTC I is 11.16%, much higher than that of conventional
from digital oscilloscope and then analyzed in MATLAB. The MPTC and MPTC II. It can be seen that the there is a wide
current THD (calculated up to 3500-order harmonics) of the harmonic spectrum for conventional MPTC, which may not be
MPTC II is only 3.64%, much lower than the value of 8.90% easy to be filtered. On the contrary, the current harmonics of
in conventional MPTC. Due to the inappropriate processing of MPTC II concentrates on the 2000th order (10 kHz), which is
duty ratio after the active vector selection, the current THD favorable for filter design.
ZHANG AND YANG: MODEL PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL OF INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVES WITH OPTIMAL DUTY CYCLE CONTROL 6601

(a)

Fig. 11. Torque ripple and current THD of conventional MPTC (20-kHz sam-
pling frequency), MPTC I (20-kHz sampling frequency), and MPTC II (10-kHz
sampling frequency) at various speeds with rated load.

The steady-state response with rated load at low and high

speeds are presented in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. It can be
seen that, at low-speed operation, MPTC II exhibits the lowest
torque ripple, followed by MPTC I and conventional MPTC.
There are much less harmonics in the stator current of MPTC II,
compared to conventional MPTC and MPTC I. The low-speed
performance of MPTC I is better than that without load shown
in Fig. 7, especially in the stator current. Similar results can be
observed at high-speed operation. Again, the best performance
in terms of current harmonics and torque ripple is observed in (b)
MPTC II. There is less torque ripple in MPTC I than that in
conventional MPTC, while their stator current harmonics are
similar. This proves that MPTC I works well at high speed,
which is in accordance to the simulation results.
The torque ripple and current THD of conventional MPTC,
MPTC I, and MPTC II at various speed with rated torque are
summarized in Fig. 11. It is seen that conventional MPTC
presents the highest torque ripple at all speeds. Both MPTC
I and MPTC II present much lower torque ripple, especially at
low speed for MPTC II. At medium and high speeds, the torque
ripples of MPTC I and MPTC II are similar and lower than that
of conventional MPTC. The current THD of MPTC II is better
than that of conventional MPTC and MPTC I at both low and
medium speed, especially at low speed. However, at high speed,
the performance difference is insignificant and the current THD (c)
of conventional MPTC is slightly better than that of MPTC I
Fig. 12. Starting from standstill to 1500 r/min for (a) conventional MPTC at
and MPTC II, because it is less affected by the dead time of in- 20-kHz sampling frequency, (b) MPTC I at 20-kHz sampling frequency, and
verter. Considering the torque ripple and current THD at various (c) MPTC II at 10-kHz sampling frequency.
speeds and the sampling frequency, the overall performance of
MPTC II is the best one among the three kinds of methods.
Apart from the steady-state response, the dynamic responses to 1500 r/min without large starting current. The dynamic
of three kinds of MPTC are also compared. Fig. 12 presents responses of three kinds of methods are very similar, but MPTC
the staring response from standstill to 1500 r/min without load. I and MPTC II present much lower torque ripple. The results
From top to bottom, the curves shown in Fig. 12 are rotor speed, prove that MPTC II performs well with much lower sampling
electromagnetic torque, stator flux, and current. As described frequency during the dynamic process. It should be noted that
in Section III-D, the stator flux is first established before start- the flux ripple of conventional MPTC is smaller than that of
ing the machine. It is seen that the motor accelerates quickly MPTC I and MPTC II. This is because in real implementation,
6602 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2014

be seen that the speed returns to its reference value quickly,

exhibiting strong robustness against external load disturbance.
It takes about 180 ms for the torque to reach its rated value for
three kinds of methods. The dynamic response of three kinds
of methods are very similar, which proves that MPTC II can
achieve improved torque performance without dynamic perfor-
mance degradation, even if the sampling frequency is much
lower.

VI. CONCLUSION
Conventional MPTC has been known to present relatively
high torque ripple at steady state due to the limited number
of voltage vectors in two-level inverter. To achieve reduced
(a)
torque ripple, the duty cycle control was introduced in MPTC.
In prior improved MPTC with duty cycle control, the voltage
vector is first selected based on the principle of cost function
minimization, and then the duty ratio of the selected vector is
obtained. From the view of torque and flux errors minimization,
the selected voltage vector may no longer be the optimal one
because its duration has been changed. As a result, poor low-
speed performance is observed.
This paper proposes an improved MPTC by taking the duty
ratio determination into account when evaluating the cost func-
tion for each voltage vector. Better torque performance with
much lower sampling frequency can be observed in the pro-
posed MPTC at various speeds with or without load, especially
in the low-speed range. Meanwhile, the quick dynamic response
of conventional MPTC is maintained. A comparative study with
(b) conventional MPTC and prior improved MPTC with duty cycle
control is carried out. Both simulation and experimental results
confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method.

REFERENCES
[1] Y. Zhang and J. Zhu, “A novel duty cycle control strategy to reduce both
torque and flux ripples for DTC of permanent magnet synchronous motor
drives with switching frequency reduction,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 3055–3067, Oct. 2011.
[2] D. Casadei, F. Profumo, G. Serra, and A. Tani, “FOC and DTC: Two
viable schemes for induction motors torque control,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 779–787, Sep. 2002.
[3] Y. Zhang, J. Hu, and J. Zhu, “Three-vectors-based predictive direct power
control of doubly fed induction generator for wind energy applications,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 7, 2014.
[4] G. S. Buja and M. P. Kazmierkowski, “Direct torque control of PWM
inverter-fed AC motors—A survey,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51,
(c) no. 4, pp. 744–757, Aug. 2004.
[5] Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, Z. Zhao, W. Xu, and D. Dorrell, “An improved di-
Fig. 13. Responses to 100% rated load disturbance for (a) conventional MPTC rect torque control for three-level inverter-fed induction motor sensorless
at 20-kHz sampling frequency, (b) MPTC I at 20-kHz sampling frequency, and drive,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1502–1513, Mar.
(c) MPTC II at 10-kHz sampling frequency. 2012.
[6] J. Beerten, J. Verveckken, and J. Driesen, “Predictive direct torque control
for flux and torque ripple reduction,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57,
no. 1, pp. 404–412, Jan. 2010.
both MPTC I and MPTC II are more susceptible to dead time [7] J.-K. Kang and S.-K. Sul, “New direct torque control of induction motor for
due to the twice switching state changes during one control pe- minimum torque ripple and constant switching frequency,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1076–1082, Sep./Oct. 1999.
riod. Future work will consider compensating the influence of [8] Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, W. Xu, and Y. Guo, “A simple method to reduce torque
dead time in real implementation. ripple in direct torque-controlled permanent-magnet synchronous motor
The responses to external load disturbance for three kinds by using vectors with variable amplitude and angle,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 2848–2859, Jul. 2011.
of methods are shown in Fig. 13. An external load of 14 Nm [9] C. Lascu and A. Trzynadlowski, “Combining the principles of sliding
(100% rated torque) is suddenly applied to the machine. It can mode, direct torque control, and space-vector modulation in a high-
ZHANG AND YANG: MODEL PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL OF INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVES WITH OPTIMAL DUTY CYCLE CONTROL 6603

performance sensorless ac drive,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 40, no. 1, [27] K. Kubota, K. Matsuse, and T. Nakano, “DSP-based speed adaptive flux
pp. 170–177, Jan./Feb. 2004. observer of induction motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 29, no. 2,
[10] K.-K. Shyu, J.-K. Lin, V.-T. Pham, M.-J. Yang, and T.-W. Wang, “Global pp. 344–348, Mar./Apr. 1993.
minimum torque ripple design for direct torque control of induction motor [28] J. Maes and J. A. Melkebeek, “Speed-sensorless direct torque control of
drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 3148–3156, Sep. induction motors using an adaptive flux observer,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
2010. vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 778–785, May 2000.
[11] Y. Zhang and J. Zhu, “Direct torque control of permanent magnet syn- [29] M. Nemec, D. Nedeljkovic, and V. Ambrozic, “Predictive torque control
chronous motor with reduced torque ripple and commutation frequency,” of induction machines using immediate flux control,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 235–248, Jan. 2011. Electron., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 2009–2017, Aug. 2007.
[12] P. Cortes, M. Kazmierkowski, R. Kennel, D. Quevedo, and J. Rodriguez, [30] B. Kenny and R. Lorenz, “Stator- and rotor-flux-based deadbeat direct
“Predictive control in power electronics and drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. torque control of induction machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39,
Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4312–4324, Dec. 2008. no. 4, pp. 1093–1101, Jul./Aug. 2003.
[13] R. Vargas, U. Ammann, B. Hudoffsky, J. Rodriguez, and P. Wheeler, “Pre- [31] E. Flach, R. Hoffmann, and P. Mutschler, “Direct mean torque control of
dictive torque control of an induction machine fed by a matrix converter an induction motor,” in Proc. Eur. Power Electron. Drives, 1997, vol. 3,
with reactive input power control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25, pp. 672–677.
no. 6, pp. 1426–1438, Jun. 2010. [32] P. Cortes, J. Rodriguez, C. Silva, and A. Flores, “Delay compensation in
[14] T. Geyer, “Computationally efficient model predictive direct torque con- model predictive current control of a three-phase inverter,” IEEE Trans.
trol,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 2804–2816, Oct. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 1323–1325, Feb. 2012.
2011.
[15] S. A. Davari, D. A. Khaburi, F. Wang, and R. M. Kennel, “Using full
order and reduced order observers for robust sensorless predictive torque
control of induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 7,
pp. 3424–3433, Jul. 2012.
[16] Y. Zhang and W. Xie, “Low complexity model predictive control—Single
vector based approach,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2014, to be pub- Yongchang Zhang (M’10) received the B.S. degree
lished. from Chongqing University, Chongqing, China, and
[17] C. A. Rojas, J. Rodriguez, F. Villarroel, J. R. Espinoza, C. A. Silva, and the Ph.D. degree from Tsinghua University, Beijing,
M. Trincado, “Predictive torque and flux control without weighting fac- China, both in electrical engineering, in 2004 and
tors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 681–690, Feb. 2013. 2009, respectively.
[18] Y. Zhang, W. Xie, Z. Li, and Y. Zhang, “Model predictive direct power From August 2009 to August 2011, he was a Post-
control of a PWM rectifier with duty cycle optimization,” IEEE Trans. doctoral Fellow at the University of Technology, Syd-
Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 5343–5351, 2013. ney, Australia. He joined North China University of
[19] S. A. Davari, D. A. Khaburi, and R. Kennel, “An improved FCS–MPC Technology, Beijing, in August 2011, and became an
algorithm for an induction motor with an imposed optimized weighting Associate Professor in power electronics and motor
factor,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1540–1551, Mar. drives. He has published more than 70 technical pa-
2012. pers in the area of motor drives, pulsewidth modulation, and ac/dc converters.
[20] J. Rodriguez, R. M. Kennel, J. R. Espinoza, M. Trincado, C. A. Silva, and His current research interest is model predictive control for power converters
C. A. Rojas, “High-performance control strategies for electrical drives: and motor drives.
An experimental assessment,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 2,
pp. 812–820, Feb. 2012.
[21] T. Geyer, G. Papafotiou, and M. Morari, “Model predictive direct torque
control-part I: Concept, algorithm, and analysis,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec-
tron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1894–1905, Jun. 2009.
[22] H. Miranda, P. Cortes, J. Yuz, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive torque control
of induction machines based on state-space models,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1916–1924, Jun. 2009. Haitao Yang was born in 1987. He received the B.S.
[23] J. Rodriguez and P. Cortes, Predictive Control of Power Converters and degree from Hefei University of Technology, Hefei,
Electrical Drives. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-IEEE Press, 2012. China, in 2009. He is currently working toward the
[24] Y. Zhang and H. Yang, “Torque ripple reduction of model predictive torque Master’s degree in electrical engineering at the North
control of induction motor drives,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. China University of Technology, Beijing, China.
Expo., 2013, pp. 1176–1183. His research interest is model predictive control
[25] Q. Li, N. Wang, and D. Yi, Numerical Analysis. Beijing, China: Tsinghua of motor drives.
Univ. Press, 2001.
[26] L.-J. Diao, D. nan Sun, K. Dong, L.-T. Zhao, and Z.-G. Liu, “Optimized
design of discrete traction induction motor model at low-switching fre-
quency,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 4803–4810,
Oct. 2013.

View publication stats