Machine Synchrone
Machine Synchrone
Abstract—In this paper we describe the design and imple- measurements to be carried out online.
mentation of a current controller for a reluctance synchronous Regarding the control of RSMs, two main concepts have been
machine based on continuous set nonlinear model predictive pursued in the past: (i) Direct Torque Control (DTC) [4, 28]
control. A simplified experimentally identified grey box model
arXiv:1910.10681v1 [eess.SY] 23 Oct 2019
of the flux linkage map is employed in a tracking formulation and (ii) field-oriented control (FOC) [3, 31, 46]. While DTC
which is implemented using the high-performance framework for is known for its robustness and fast dynamics [5], it produces
nonlinear model predictive control acados. The resulting con- a high current distortion leading to torque ripples [6]. In
troller is validated in simulation and deployed on a dSPACE real- contrast, vector control improves the torque response [42] and
time system connected with a physical reluctance synchronous the efficiency of the system [26], but good knowledge of the
machine. Experimental results are presented where the proposed
implementation can reach sampling times in the range typical for system parameters is required for implementation. In [20], a
electrical drives and outperforms state-of-the-art classical control completely parameter-free adaptive PI controller is proposed
strategies. which guarantees tracking with prescribed transient accuracy.
Index Terms—predictive control, electric motors, nonlinear The controller is applied to current control of (reluctance) syn-
systems. chronous machines, but measurement results are not provided.
In [42] and [47], the inductances are tracked online in order to
adjust the current references thus achieving a higher control ac-
I. I NTRODUCTION
curacy. In [23], a FOC control scheme is proposed, where the
N recent years, reluctance synchronous machines (RSMs)
I have emerged as a competitive alternative to classical syn-
chronous machines (SMs) with permanent magnet (PMSM)
PI control parameters are continuously adapted to the actual
system state, which improves the overall current dynamics.
An alternative to classical control approaches is the use of
or direct current excitation. In addition to the favourable optimization-based control techniques such as model predic-
properties of SMs in general, e.g. high efficiency, reliability tive control (MPC). When using MPC, a parametric optimiza-
and compact design, RSMs are easy to manufacture and com- tion problem is formulated that exploits a model of the plant
parably cheap due to the absence of magnets. Moreover, their to be controlled and enforces constraints while minimizing
anisotropic magnetic path in the rotor, makes them particularly a certain objective function. Although MPC can in principle
suitable for saliency-based encoderless control [29, 30]. improve the control performance and ease the controller design
However, a major drawback of the RSM concerning control [18], meeting the required sampling times is in general a chal-
is its characteristic nonlinearity of the flux linkage, caused by lenging task due to the high computational burden associated
magnetic saturation and cross-coupling effects in the rotor. As with the solution of the underlying optimization problems.
a consequence, the machines’ inductances vary significantly In order to circumvent this difficulty, several algorithmic
with the stator currents. Additional coupling between the stator strategies have been proposed over the past decade that use
d- and q-currents is imposed by the cross-coupling inductances different approaches and (potentially) different formulations of
and the coupling of the nonlinear back electro-motive force the optimal control problems to be solved. Among the possible
in the synchronous reference frame, which requires further classifications of methods present in the literature, in the
fields of electrical drives and power electronics, a fundamental
This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Eco-
nomic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) via eco4wind (0324125B) and DyConPV distinction can be made between what is sometimes referred
(0324166B), by DFG via Research Unit FOR 2401 and by the EU via ITN- to as finite (FS-) and continuous control set (CS-) MPC [37],
AWESCO (642 682) [7].
Andrea Zanelli and Gianluca Frison are with the Systems Control and
Optimization Laboratory, Department of Microsystems Engineering, Univer- In FS-MPC, the switch positions of the power converter are
sity of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (email: [email protected], gian- regarded as optimization variables leading to mixed-integer
[email protected]). programs. In this way, the need for an external modulator
Julian Kullick is with the research group Control of Renewable Energy
Systems at the Munich School of Engineering, Technical University of is eliminated and the switching sequences are directly deter-
Munich, Munich, Germany (email: [email protected]). mined by the solution to the optimal control problem (hence
Hisham Eldeeb is with IAV GmbH, Munich, Germany. the name “direct” MPC used in some of the literature on MPC
Christoph M. Hackl is with the Department of Electrical Engineering
and Information Technology at the Munich University of Applied Sciences, for electrical drives and power converters [17]).
Munich, Germany. When using CS-MPC instead, we delegate the determination
Moritz Diehl is with the Systems Control and Optimization Laboratory, of switching sequences to an external modulator in order to
Department of Microsystems Engineering and Department of Mathematics,
University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (email: [email protected] obtain a continuous optimization problem. For this reason,
freiburg.de). CS-MPC is sometimes referred to as “indirect” MPC [17].
2
1.0 0.4
0.5 0.2
ψsd / W
ψsd / W
0.0 0.0
−0.5 −0.2
−0.4
−1.0
40 40
20 20
0 0
/A /A
−40 −40
−20 −20
0 −20 iqs 0 −20 iqs
isd / A 20 −40 isd / A 20 −40
40 40
(a) fitted grey box flux model - d-component (b) fitted grey box flux model - q-component
Figure 1: Nonlinear flux linkage of a real RSM (obtained from FEM data) and fitted grey box model. The worst-case relative error amounts to less than 10%.
Although the computation times associated with this latter II. BACKGROUND ON RSM S AND NMPC
approach scale favourably with prediction horizon length and In order to facilitate the discussion of the design and
number ˙ +
of control variables (typically complexity O N (n u implementation of the proposed controller, in the following,
3
nx ) can be achieved, where N , nu and nx represent horizon mathematical models of RSMs and voltage source inverters
length, number of inputs and states, respectively), for short (VSI) will be derived and numerical methods for NMPC will
horizons, strategies based e.g. on sphere decoding algorithms be introduced. Note that the argument (t), used to denote
applied to FS-MPC formulations can achieve sufficiently short dependence on time, is dropped for the sake of readability.
computation times. On the contrary, CS-MPC is generally
regarded as more computationally expensive and it is still, A. Generic model of the RSM
arguably for this reason, largely unexplored [17]. Among The machine model in the synchronously rotating (d, q)-
the experimental results in the literature obtained with CS- reference frame is given by [21, Chap. 14]
MPC, in [2] a DC-excited synchronous motor is controlled
=:J
using the real-time iteration method. In [14], a fixed-point z }| {
iteration scheme is used to control a permanent magnet syn- 0 −1 d
us = Rs is +ω ψs is + dt ψs i s , (1)
chronous machine (PMSM). Among applications leveraging 1 0
linear-quadratic CS-MPC we mention the work in [12] in d np h i
d
dt ω = mm (i s ) − m l , dt φ = ω,
which permanent magnet synchronous machines and induc- Θ
tion machines are controlled using explicit model predictive where us := (uds , uqs )> are the applied stator voltages, Rs is
control. the stator resistance, is := (ids , iqs )> are the stator currents
and ψs := (ψsd , ψsq )> are the stator flux linkages (functions of
is ). The (d, q)-reference frame rotates with electrical angular
A. Contribution frequency ω = np ωm of the rotor where np is the number of
In this paper, we describe the design and implementation pole pairs and ωm denotes the mechanical angular frequency
details together with experimental results of a nonlinear CS- of the machine. Furthermore, Θ is the total moment of inertia,
MPC controller (CS-NMPC) for an RSM. The contributions mm (is ) := 32 np (is )> Jψs is
(2)
of the present work are:
• We describe the design and implementation details of is the electro-magnetic machine torque, and ml represents an
a tracking CS-NMPC formulation that relies on the external (time-varying) bounded load torque.
software package acados, which is capable of achiev- In order to formulate an optimal control problem, the flux
ing timings in the microsecond time scale necessary to dynamics can be described, based on (1), with the following
control the electrical drive. differential algebraic equation (DAE):
We propose the use of a simple grey box model for the d
dt ψs = us − Rs is − ωJψs + v,
•
flux maps of RSMs that can be used for online applica- (3)
0 = ψs − Ψs (is ),
tions where computation times are of key importance.
• Finally, we present simulation and experimental results where Ψs := (Ψds , Ψqs )> : R2 → R2 represent the identified
that confirm the validity of the proposed control formula- flux maps and v := (v d , v q )> are additive disturbances which
tion and its implementation and its superior performance will be used in a offset-free NMPC formulation (see Section
in comparison with state-of-the-art methods from the II-F).
field of classical control. This is, to the best of the Based on the available flux maps computed through finite
authors’ knowledge, one the of the earliest experimentally element method (FEM), we obtained a continuously differ-
validated applications of CS-NMPC to an RSM. entiable model by fitting a simple grey box model. Due to
3
β
b hexagon in the αβ-plane is obtained (see Figure 2), where
1 1 1 −1 0
2u 0 −
uss = κ udc 2 √3 1 −1 sabc
s s
u010 3 dc u110 2
0 s (7)
0 2 0 −1 0 1
1u
3 dc s abc
p on the switching vector ss and the Clarke-factor κ ∈
depends
uref
s
u011 √1 u s s 1u s {2/3, 2/3} [21, Chap. 14]. Using space-vector modulation
3 dcu000 = u111 2 dc
u100
α (SVM) to generate the switching√vector, any voltage reference
− 2 udc
3
− 1 udc
3
0 1u
3 dc
2u
3 dc
a
within the circle of radius udc / 3 can be realized, with udc
− 1 udc
3
denoting the (assumed constant) DC link voltage. Finally, the
inverter output voltage is transformed into the rotating (d, q)-
s s
reference frame using the inverse Park transformation, i.e.
u001 − 2 udc u101
3
d
us cos(φ) sin(φ) s
us = q = u . (8)
c us − sin(φ) cos(φ) s
| {z }
Figure 2: Voltage hexagon of the two-level VSI. =:Tp (φ)
−1
constant angular velocity ωe and disturbances ve . The variables via Newton-type iterations. In the context of NMPC, efficient
ψ̄ and ū denote the steady-state references computed for a strategies and tailored implementations are available that rely
given desired torque using a maximum-torque-per-Ampere on, for example, exploiting the structure of the model [16, 38],
(MTPA) criterion [13]. Given the flux maps obtained from on reuse of Jacobian factorizations and efficient sensitivity
FEM data in Figure 1, it is possible to compute off-line lookup generation [41] on lifting-based formulations [39] and on
tables (LUTs) that contain the MTPA reference fluxes and inexact iterations [40].
voltages for a finite number of values of the target torque in a Once the linearization is carried out, one generally needs to
specified range. The LUTs are then interpolated online in order solve structured linear systems that can be used to compute
to compute approximate values of ψ̄ and ū associated with the the solution to a quadratic program (QP) as in sequential
specified target torque m̄. We use the notation kxk2P = x> P x, quadratic programming (SQP), compute the update defined
for some positive definite matrix P , to denote the squared by an interior-point method or the one used by other various
P -weighted norm of the vector x. Finally, C and c define strategies, e.g. first-order methods. Since the description of
polytopic constraints (“safety” constraints later) that are meant the details of the different available approaches to solve (9)
to be always inactive at any local solution of (9), but can goes well beyond the scope of this work, we will focus, in the
mitigate constraint violation of intermediate SQP iterates. following, on the SQP strategy, which constitutes the basis for
the real-time iteration (RTI) method used in this application.
Remark 1. Notice that the actual dynamics of the system
involve a coupling of mechanical (ω) and electrical states When using SQP, a sequence of structured QPs of the
(ψ). It is however common, given the large difference between following form needs to be solved:
>
associated time constants, to assume a constant angular N −1 s s >
1 X i i 1 sN
velocity ω when designing controllers. In our case, it will s
min ui H ui + HN N
allow to use much shorter prediction horizons since we do s0 ,...,sN 2 2 1 1
u0 ,...,uN −1 i=0 1 1
not require the OCP in (9) to steer the speed of the motor
s.t. s0 − x = 0, (10)
to the desired reference, but only fluxes which directly map to
currents and, for a given speed, to torques. si+1 = Asi + Bui + c, i = 0, . . . , N − 1,
Cui + Dxi + e ≤ 0, i = 0, . . . , N − 1,
Problem (9) is used to define an implicit feedback policy
that requires the solution of an instance of the parametric NLP DN xN + eN ≤ 0,
at every sampling time, where the value of the parameter x where A ∈ Rns ×ns , B ∈ Rns ×nu and c ∈ Rns define the
is given by the current estimate of the system’s state. The linearized dynamics obtained through numerical integration
resulting solutions are feasible with respect to the constraints and where C ∈ Rnπ ×nu , D ∈ Rnπ ×ns , e ∈ Rnπ and
and minimize (at least locally) the cost function. Nominal and CN ∈ Rnπ ×ns , eN ∈ Rnπ define the linearized constraints.
N N
inherently robust stability of the closed-loop system can be Finally the matrices
guaranteed in a neighborhood of a steady-state by properly
Q S q
choosing the terminal cost [43].
QN qN
>
H= S R r and HN = > , (11)
Remark 2. Notice that formulations more general than (9) qN 0
q> r> 0
can in principle be used in the framework of NMPC. Among
others, economic costs and more general nonlinear constraints with Q ∈ Rns ×ns , S ∈ Rns ×nu R ∈ Rnu ×nu r ∈ Rnu
and nonlinear cost terms, are features that can be included q ∈ Rns obtained through linearization of the cost, define the
in the problem in order to better capture control design cost of the QP. The matrices and vectors defining the QP (10)
requirements. However, for the application discussed in this are computed based on the linearization associated with the
paper, the nonlinear least-squares problem described in (9) is given current primal-dual iterate z k = (sk , uk , λk, µk ) (where
general enough. λ and µ represent the Lagrange multipliers associated with the
equality and inequality in (9), respectively) and, after solving
D. Numerical methods and software for NMPC (10), the iterate is updated:
In order to be able to solve problem (9) within the available z k+1 ← z k + α(zQP
k
− z k ), (12)
computation time, the use of efficient numerical methods is
k
fundamental. First, since (9) is obtained through a multiple- where zQPrepresents the primal-dual solution of the QP
shooting discretization strategy, an efficient way of computing associated with the linearization point z k and α > 0 is the
evaluations of the discretized dynamics f and of its first step size, which can be adjusted to achieve convergence. Under
(and eventually second order) needs to be available. This is standard assumptions [34], the iterates in (12) converge to a
commonly achieved by means of numerical integration of the local minimum of (9).
ordinary differential equation (ODE) or algebraic differential Due to the computational burden associated with the solu-
equations (DAE) describing the dynamics of the system. tion of QPs and re-linearization of the original NLP in (9), sev-
Although for ODEs explicit and implicit integration methods eral approximate strategies can be used that can significantly
can be used, for DAEs, as for the system under consideration reduce computation times (e.g. [49], [19], [15]). In this work,
(see Section II-A), implicit schemes are generally necessary we will use the RTI strategy [8–10], which relies on a single
that involve the solution of nonlinear root-finding problems SQP iteration in order to provide an approximate feedback
5
Figure 4: Control diagram: the MTPA LUTs provide the reference flux ψ̄ and
voltage ū associated with a given reference torque m̄. The NMPC
controller computes the optimal control action based on the current
Figure 3: Laboratory setup with dSPACE real-time system, voltage-source state and disturbance estimate provided by an EKF.
inverters connected back-to-back, RSM and PMSM and torque
sensor.
300 300
200 200
100 100
uq / V
uq / V
0 0
−100 −100
−200 −200
−300 −300
we have implemented an EKF based on the augmented model dSPACE ControlDesk 6.1p4 for rapid-prototyping, data
(13) using the implicit integrators available in acados. acquisition and evaluation, the custom-built 9,6 kW RSM as
We set the PMSM such that it maintains a constant rota- device under test and a 14,5 kW SEW PMSM as load machine.
tional speed and we change the torque reference fed to the The DR2212 torque sensor allows to measure the mechanical
RSM’s controller in order to assess the tracking performance torque too, but it was not used. The controller based on the
of the proposed controller. We compare the closed-loop tra- formulation described in Section III and implemented using
jectories obtained with the ones achieved when using instead the acados framework has been deployed on the dSPACE
the gain-scheduled PI controller with anti-windup presented unit connected to the physical RSM.
in [22]. The current trajectories obtained with the CS-NMPC Two different experiments have been carried out. In the first
and PI controller are reported in Figure 6 (similarly for input case we used the PMSM to maintain the nominal rotational
trajectories in Figure 5). It can be clearly seen from the speed of the rotor (157 rad/ sec) and different torque refer-
snapshots of the trajectories reported in Figure 7 that the ences have been fed to the RSM controllers under analysis. In
transient can be drastically improved when operating near the the second case, on the contrary, a fixed torque reference was
boundaries of the feasible control set. fed to the CS-NMPC and PI controller and the speed of the
shaft was changed by the PMSM.
The closed-loop trajectories for the conducted experiments
IV. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
are reported in Figure 8-9. Similarly to the results obtained
The presented NMPC scheme has been implemented and in simulation, when tracking torque steps at a fixed speed (in
verified experimentally on a custom-built 9,6 kW RSM (Cour- Figure 8), the proposed CS-NMPC controller achieves better
tesy of Prof. Maarten Kamper, Stellenbosch University, South tracking performance than the gain-scheduled PI controller.
Africa) with the parameters Notice that there is a substantial discrepancy between simula-
rad tion and experimental results right after the third torque step,
Rs = 0,4 Ω, ωm,nom = 157,07 , at t = 0,75 s, due to a drop in the DC-link voltage. In fact, in
s
mm,nom = 61 N m, ı̂s,max = 29,7 A, (15) the presence of a sudden change in the torque reference, the
voltage of the DC-link capacitor can drop if the recharging
ûs,max = 580 V,
rate is slower the discharging rate (behavior not modelled in
and the nonlinear flux linkage maps as depicted in Figure 1 simulation). In the second experiment, in Figure 9, similar
(maps were obtained from FEM). The overall laboratory conclusions can be drawn since the desired currents can be
setup is depicted in Figure 3 and comprises the dSPACE more closely tracked when using CS-NMPC.
real-time system with processor board DS1007 and various
extensions and I/O boards, two 22 kW SEW inverters in back- V. C ONCLUSIONS
to-back configuration sharing a common DC-link, the HOST- In this paper we present simulation and experimental results
PC running MATLAB/Simulink with RCPHIL R2017 and obtained with a CS-NMPC torque controller for RSMs. As
7
40 40
30 30
20 20
currents (in A)
currents (in A)
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
−20 −20
id id
−30 −30
iq iq
−40 −40
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
time (in sec) time (in sec)
rad
Figure 6: Current steps at 157 s
: simulation results obtained using the CS-NMPC (left) and gain-scheduled PI controller (right).
25 25
20 20
currents (in A)
currents (in A)
15 15
10 10
30 30
20 20
currents (in A)
currents (in A)
10 10
0 0
−10 −10
−20 −20
id (PI, exp.) id (CS-NMPC, exp.)
−30 −30
i (PI, exp.)
q
iq (CS-NMPC, exp.)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
time (in sec) time (in sec)
rad
Figure 8: Torque steps at 157 s
: experimental results obtained using the proposed CS-NMPC controller (left) and gain-scheduled PI controller (right).
40 40
35 35
30 30
currents (in A)
currents (in A)
25 25
20 20
15 15
i (CS-NMPC, exp.)
d
id (PI, exp.)
10 10
i (CS-NMPC, exp.)
q
iq (PI, exp.)
5 5
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
time (in sec) time (in sec)
Figure 9: Speed steps at 61 N m: experimental results obtained using the proposed CS-NMPC controller (left) and gain-scheduled PI controller (right).
D. Keyes, and B. van Bloemen Waanders, editors, Real- Differential Equations II: Stiff and Differential–Algebraic
Time and Online PDE-Constrained Optimization, pages Problems. Springer Series in Computational Mathemat-
23–52. SIAM, 2007. ics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2nd revised edition, 2004.
[11] M. Diehl, D.B. Leineweber, and A.A.S. Schäfer. [25] B. Houska, H. J. Ferreau, and M. Diehl. ACADO toolkit
MUSCOD-II Users’ Manual. IWR-Preprint 2001-25, – an open source framework for automatic control and
University of Heidelberg, 2001. dynamic optimization. Optimal Control Applications and
[12] A. Domahidi, S. Mariethoz, and M. Morari. High- Methods, 32(3):298–312, 2011.
bandwidth explicit model predictive control of electrical [26] Marten J. Kamper, F.S. van der Merwe, and
drives. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, S. Williamson. Direct finite element design optimisation
48(6):1980–1992, November 2012. of the cageless reluctance synchronous machine. IEEE
[13] Hisham Eldeeb, Christoph M. Hackl, Lorenz Horlbeck, Transactions on Power Conversion, 11(3):547–555,
and Julian Kullick. A unified theory for optimal feed- 1996.
forward torque control of anisotropic synchronous ma- [27] D. Kouzoupis, G. Frison, A. Zanelli, and M. Diehl.
chines. International Journal of Control, 91(10):2273– Recent advances in quadratic programming algorithms
2302, 2017. for nonlinear model predictive control. Vietnam Journal
[14] T. Englert and K. Graichen. A fixed-point iteration of Mathematics, 46(4):863–882, 2018.
scheme for model predictive torque control of pmsms. [28] R. Lagerquist, I. Boldea, and T.J.E. Miller. Sensorless-
In Proceedings of the 6th IFAC Conference on Nonlinear control of the synchronous reluctance motor. IEEE
Model Predictive Control, volume 51, pages 568–573, Transactions on Industry Applications, 30(3):673–682,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA, August 2018. 1994.
[15] C. Feller and C. Ebenbauer. Relaxed logarithmic bar- [29] Peter Landsmann, Ralph Kennel, Hugo W. de Kock,
rier function based model predictive control of linear and Marten J. Kamper. Fundamental saliency based
systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, encoderless control for reluctance synchronous machines.
62(3):1223–1238, March 2017. In Proceedings of the XIX International Conference on
[16] Jonathan Frey, Rien Quirynen, Dimitris Kouzoupis, Gi- Electrical Machines (ICEM), pages 1–7, 2010.
anluca Frison, Jens Geisler, Axel Schild, and Moritz [30] Peter Landsmann, Dirk Paulus, Peter Stolze, and Ralph
Diehl. Detecting and exploiting Generalized Nonlinear Kennel. Reducing the parameter dependency of encoder-
Static Feedback structures in DAE systems for MPC. In less predictive torque control for reluctance machines.
Proceedings of the European Control Conference (ECC), In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on
2019. Sensorless Control for Electrical Drives (SLED), pages
[17] Tobias Geyer. Model Predictive Control of High Power 93–99, 2010.
Converters and Industrial Drives. John Wiley & Sons, [31] T. Matsuo and T.A. Lipo. Field oriented control of
2016. synchronous reluctance machine. In Power Electronics
[18] Tobias Geyer, Georgios Papafotiou, and Manfred Morari. Specialists Conference, 1993. PESC ’93 Record., 24th
Model predictive direct torque control – Part I: Concept, Annual IEEE, pages 425–431, Jun 1993.
algorithm, and analysis. IEEE Transaction on Industrial [32] Manfred Morari and Urban Maeder. Nonlinear offset-free
Electronics, 56(6):1894–1905, 2009. model predictive control. Automatica, 48(9):2059–2067,
[19] K. Graichen and A. Kugi. Stability and incremen- 2012.
tal improvement of suboptimal mpc without terminal [33] K. R. Muske and T. A. Badgwell. Disturbance modeling
constraints. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, for offset-free linear model predictive control. Journal
55(11):2576–2580, 2010. of Process Control, 12:617–632, 2002.
[20] Christoph M. Hackl. Current PI-funnel control with anti- [34] J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright. Numerical Optimization.
windup for synchronous machines. In Proceedings of the Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial
54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages Engineering. Springer, 2 edition, 2006.
1997–2004, 2015. [35] G. Pannocchia, M. Gabiccini, and A. Artoni. Offset-free
[21] Christoph M. Hackl. Non-identifier Based Adaptive Con- MPC explained: novelties, subtleties, and applications. In
trol in Mechatronics. Springer International Publishing, Proceedings of the 5th IFAC Conference on Nonlinear
2017. Model Predictive Control, volume 48, pages 342–251,
[22] Christoph M. Hackl, Maarten J. Kamper, Julian 2015.
Kullick, and Joshua Mitchell. Nonlinear PI cur- [36] G. Pannocchia and J.B. Rawlings. Disturbance Models
rent control of reluctance synchronous machines. for Offset-Free Model-Predictive Control. AIChE Jour-
arxiv.org/pdf/1512.09301.v1, 2015. nal, 49:426–437, 2003.
[23] C.M. Hackl, M.J. Kamper, J. Kullick, and J. Mitchell. [37] D. E. Quevedo, R. Aguilera, and T. Geyer. Model
Current control of reluctance synchronous machines with predictive control for power electronics applications. In
online adjustment of the controller parameters. In 2016 S. V. Rakovic and W. S. Levine, editors, Handbook of
IEEE 25th International Symposium on Industrial Elec- Model Predictive Control, pages 551–580. Birkhäuser,
tronics (ISIE). IEEE, jun 2016. Cham, 2019.
[24] Ernst Hairer and Gerhard Wanner. Solving Ordinary [38] R. Quirynen, S. Gros, and M. Diehl. Efficient NMPC for
10