International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 98~108

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v15.i1.pp98-108  98

Predictive controllers for synchronous reluctance

motor drive systems

Muhammad Syahril Mubarok1, Nur Vidia Laksmi B.2, Tian-Hua Liu3

1
Department of Engineering, Faculty of Advanced Technology and Multidiscipline, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This paper proposes the design and implementation of predictive controllers
for synchronous reluctance motor drive systems to enhance their dynamic
Received May 13, 2023 responses. The predictive speed and current controllers in this paper are
Revised Aug 30, 2023 designed in systematic procedures. The predictive speed controller is
Accepted Sep 14, 2023 implemented by using Laguerre function procedure. The Laguerre function
is used to simplify the algorithm and to minimize the execution time of the
Keywords: digital signal processor. For predictive current controller, a finite control set
method improves the current tracking ability. The measured currents are
Cost function minimization used to predict the future phase-current based on the motor model. The
Dynamic response optimal control inputs of both predictive controllers are determined by using
Laguerre function a cost function minimization method. Experimental results show the
Predictive controller proposed drive system provides a wide adjustable speed range, from 2 r/min
Synchronous reluctance motor to 1800 r/min. It has better performance than a proportional-integral (PI)
controller including fast rise time, which is 0.9 second, small steady state
error, which is 0.32 r/min, and small current ripples. A 32-bit floating-point
digital signal processor, TMS-320-F-28335 DSP, is employed to implement
the control algorithms.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Muhammad Syahril Mubarok
Department of Engineering, Faculty of Advanced Technology and Multidiscipline, Universitas Airlangga
Kuliah Bersama Building, Dr. Ir. H. Soekarno Street, Mulyorejo, Surabaya, East Java, 60115, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the using of power electronics technology and control technology for AC motors has
improved the performance of AC drive systems [1], [2]. AC motors are classified into three types: i) the
induction motor, ii) the permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM), and iii) the synchronous reluctance
motor (SynRM). The induction motor was commonly used in industry due to its low maintenance and simple
structure. However, the PMSM has slighter size and higher performance than the induction motor does. The
permanent magnet material used in PMSMs, however, is very expensive. To solve this problem, an emerging
trend in the industry is to replace the PMSM with the SynRM, in which no permanent magnet material is
required.
The SynRM has become more and more widespread due to its simple structure and no
permanent magnet material is required [3]–[5]. The SynRM drive system is also very attracted compared to
induction motor drive systems because its control strategies are more straightforward [6]. Additionally, the
SynRM is free from rotor loss and slip, which provides higher efficiency and easier control than the induction
motor.

Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  99

The controller is an essential part for a motor drive system. There are various types of controllers
that usually applied for SynRM drives. The simple way is using proportional-integral (PI) controller which
the implementation is relatively straightforward. However, the tuning of PI parameter is more challenging for
wide speed range [7]. Some advanced control of SynRM drive system have been examined by some
researchers. Shyu and Lai [8] proposed multisegment sliding mode control for SynRM. The multisegment
sliding mode controller was implemented for speed controller and the current loop used hysteresis controller.
The method showed robust speed response but the ripple is huge. Lin et al. [9] proposed adaptive
backstepping control for SynRM to improve speed tracking response. However, the result showed that the
performance was good in middle to high speed. Senjyu et al. [10] proposed PI-based speed controller for
SynRM with extended Kalman filter to achieve high efficiency control against parameter variation.
Nevertheless, the method was too complicated when implemented in digital signal processor.
Mahfoud et al. [11] proposed direct torque control strategy motor drives using model reference adaptive
system. The method is used for sensorless speed control that is independent to the stator resistor.
Accordingly, the dynamic response is quick.
Among the advanced control technique, the predictive controller has been successfully applied to
industrial applications [12]. Generally, a model-based predictive controller (MBPC) requires a precise
mathematical model of the motor [13]–[15]. Then, the future control signal trajectory should be predefined,
and the output variable's future behaviors should also be optimized. A cost function minimization technique
is added to calculate the optimal control input. As a result, the space-vector pulse width modulation
(SVPWM) technique is not required here. The applications of the MPC include power converters [16]–[19]
and motor drives [20]–[22]. Many previous papers have investigated the MBPC in either the current-loop
control or the speed-loop control [23] but not including both of them in SynRM drive system.
In this paper, predictive controllers are proposed for SynRM drive in current loop and speed loop
control system. A systematic design of MBPC improves the dynamics performances for SynRM. The control
algorithm proposed in this paper is executed by using digital signal processor (DSP). Therefore, the hardware
circuit is easy to design. Compared to previous research [1]-[23], the ideas in this paper, which include
investigation of the speed-loop and current-loop predictive controllers for a SynRM drive systems, are
original ideas.

2. PREDICTIVE SPEED CONTROLLER DESIGN

In this paper, the speed loop of the SynRM drive system uses model predictive speed controller in
which the Laguerre function procedure is employed. The predictive speed controller is designed based on the
mechanical model of SynRM. The detailed model predictive speed controller design is explained in the
following subsection.

2.1. Discrete model of SynRMs

The MBPC is a discrete-time controller. Therefore, the uncontrolled plant should also be presented
in the discrete form as well. The discrete transfer function of the mechanical model of a SynRM can be
represented as (1)-(3) [8].

𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑧) 𝐾𝑇 /𝐽𝑚0 ℎ

𝐺𝑝 (𝑧) = = (1 − 𝑧 −1 )ℤ ( )= (1)
𝑖𝑞 (𝑧) 𝑠+(𝐵𝑚0 /𝐽𝑚0 ) 𝑧−𝑔

According to (1):
−𝐵𝑚0
𝐾𝑇 𝑇
ℎ= [1 − 𝑒 𝐽𝑚0 𝑠 ] (2)
𝐵𝑚0

−𝐵𝑚0
𝑇
𝑔=𝑒 𝐽𝑚0 𝑠 (3)

where 𝐽𝑚0 is the inertia of the SynRM, 𝐵𝑚0 is the friction coefficient of the SynRM, 𝐾𝑇 is the constant
torque, 𝑇𝑠 is the sampling interval, and Z is the z-transformation. Then, by using the inverse z-transform of
(1), it is not difficult to obtain as (4),

rm (n + 1) = grm (n) + hiq (n) (4)

where 𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) is the predicted speed; 𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) is the measured speed; and 𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) is the q-axis current.

Predictive controllers for synchronous reluctance motor drive systems (Muhammad Syahril Mubarok)
100  ISSN: 2088-8694

2.2. Augmented model of SynRMs

According to (4) and taking into account the different operations on both sides [24], one can derive.

𝛥𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) = 𝑔𝛥𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) + ℎ𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) (5)

Where 𝛥𝜔𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) is the difference of predicted speed; 𝛥𝜔𝑚 (𝑛) is the difference of present speed; and
𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) is the difference of q-axis current. From (5) is expressed as (6).

𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) = 𝑔𝛥𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) + ℎ𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) + 𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) (6)

By subtracting rm
*
(n) of (6) on both sides, is defined as (7),

𝑒𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) = 𝑔𝛥𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) + ℎ𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) + 𝑒𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) (7)

where erm (n + 1) and erm (n) are the speed errors, and erm (n) is expressed as (8).

∗
𝑒𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) = 𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) − 𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) (8)

Then the new state variable vector is selected as (9) [24].

𝑋(𝑛) = [𝛥𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) 𝛥𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 − 1) 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛 − 1) 𝑒𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛)]𝑇 (9)

By combining (5) and (7), yields.

𝛥𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) 𝑔 0 𝛥𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) ℎ

[ ]=[ ][ ] + [ ] 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑘) (10)
𝑒𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) 𝑔 1 𝑒𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) ℎ

A new augmented state variable is defined as (11).

𝛥𝜔𝑚 (𝑛 + 1)
𝑋(𝑛 + 1) = [ ]
𝑒𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) (11)

And a new matrix and vector are expressed as (12) and (13).

𝑔 0
𝐴=[ ]
𝑔 1 (12)

ℎ
𝐵=[ ]
ℎ (13)

Substituting (11)-(13) into (10), one can define (14) [24].

𝑋(𝑛 + 1) = 𝐴𝑋(𝑛) + 𝐵𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) (14)

According to (14), the output is defined as (15) and (16).

𝑦(𝑛) = 𝐶𝑋(𝑛) + 𝜔𝑟𝑚 ∗ (𝑛) = 𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) (15)

𝐶 = [0 1] (16)

2.3. Using Laguerre function for predictive controllers

A long control horizon can cause high computational numbers of the control signal 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛). In this
paper, the control horizon is used to capture the future control trajectory. As a result, the Laguerre function is
applied here. First, 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) is represented as (17) [24].

𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛 + 𝑝| 𝑛) = 𝐿(𝑝) 𝜂(𝑚) (17)

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 98-108
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  101

Where 𝑝 is the predictive step, 𝜂(𝑛) is the coefficient of Laguerre, and 𝐿(𝑝) is the Laguerre function vector.
The predicted state variable vector is obtained as (18) and (19) [24].

𝑋(𝑛 + 𝑝| 𝑛) = 𝐴𝑝 𝑋(𝑘) + 𝜑(𝑝)𝑇 𝜂(𝑛) (18)

𝑝−1
𝜑(𝑝)𝑇 = ∑𝑑=0 𝐴𝑝−𝑑−1 𝐵𝐿(𝑑) (19)

Where 𝜑(𝑝)𝑇 is the transition matrix. Then by replacing (18) into (15), is defined as (20).

𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛 + 𝑝| 𝑛) = 𝐶𝐴𝑝 𝑋(𝑛) + 𝐶𝜑(𝑝)𝑇 𝜂 + 𝜔𝑟𝑚

∗
(𝑛 + 𝑝) (20)

Then, the optimal actuation can then be determined by minimizing the cost function. The cost function is
expressed as (21) [24].

𝑁 𝑇 𝑀𝐿
𝑝 𝑁𝑝−1
𝐽 = ∑𝑝=1 𝑋(𝑛 + 𝑝| 𝑛) 𝑄𝑋(𝑛 + 𝑝| 𝑛) + ∑𝑝=0 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛 + 𝑝)𝑇 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛 + 𝑝) (21)
𝐿(𝑝)2

Where 𝑁𝑝 is the prediction horizon, 𝑀𝐿 is constant and 𝑄 = 𝐶 𝑇 𝐶 is the weighting matrix. Taking the partial
derivative of (21), we can obtain the minimum cost function is defined as (22).

𝜕𝐽 1 𝑝 𝑁 1 𝑝 𝑁
= 2𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) (∑𝑝=1 𝜑(𝑝) 𝑄𝜑(𝑝)𝑇 + 𝑀𝐿 ) + 2𝑋(𝑛) (∑𝑝=1 𝜑(𝑝) 𝑄𝐴𝑝 ) (22)
𝜕𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) 𝐿(0)2 𝐿(0)

The new variables in (22) can be defined as (23) and (24).

𝑝 𝑁
𝛱 = ∑𝑝=1 𝜑(𝑝) 𝑄𝜑(𝑝)𝑇 + 𝑀𝐿 (23)

𝑝 𝑁
𝛬 = ∑𝑝=1 𝜑(𝑝) 𝑄𝐴𝑝 (24)

𝜕𝐽
From (22), we can set to be 0, the optimal cost function is defined as (25).
𝜕𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛)

𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛)
= −𝛱 −1 𝛬𝑋(𝑛) = 𝜂(𝑛) (25)
𝐿(0)

Finally, by substituting (25) into (17), the optimal solution of control input is derived as (26) and (27).

𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) = −𝐿(0)𝛱 −1 𝛬𝑋(𝑛) = −𝑅𝑚𝑝𝑐 𝑋(𝑛) (26)

𝑅𝑚𝑝𝑐 = 𝐿(0)𝛱 −1 𝛬 (27)

Where 𝑅𝑚𝑝𝑐 is the state feedback control gain.

In the real world, the SynRM control system should provide reasonable physical constraints on the
state variables 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) and 𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) to prevent saturation or damage to the hardware. The analytical solutions are
required to identify the active constraints, which determine the control input 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) and 𝑖𝑞 (𝑛). As result, the
mathematical modifications are needed when the constraints are imposed in the system. The constraints of
𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) and 𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) are expressed as (28) [24].

𝛥𝑖𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) 𝛥𝑖𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥

[ ≤[ ] ≤ [ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ]] (28)
𝑖𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) 𝑖𝑞

The MBPC for speed-loop is redesigned when the state variables in (28) satisfy the constraints using
Hildreth’s quadratic programming procedure [24]. In this paper, the constraint of the 𝛥𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) is checked first.
After that, the 𝑖𝑞 (𝑛) is checked later to ensure that it is not exceeding the limit of the q-axis current. The
MBPC for the speed-loop scheme is shown in Figure 1. The computations of the matrix and vector are
simplified to simple numeric computations, which can be easily executed by a DSP.

Predictive controllers for synchronous reluctance motor drive systems (Muhammad Syahril Mubarok)
102  ISSN: 2088-8694

Figure 1. Predictive speed control scheme of the SynRM drive

3. MODEL-BASED PREDICTIVE CURRENT CONTROLLER DESIGN

In this paper, the focus is on a three phase, balanced, wye-connected SynRM. The three-phase stator
voltage equation is expressed as (29) [25].

𝑑𝑖𝑚
𝑣𝑚 = 𝑟𝑠 𝑖𝑚 + 𝐿𝑞 + 𝑒𝑚 (29)
𝑑𝑡

Where 𝑚 denotes the a-b-c-phase, 𝑣𝑚 represents stator voltage generated by the inverter, 𝑟𝑠 represents stator
resistance, 𝑖𝑚 represents the stator current, 𝐿𝑞 represents the q-axis self-inductance, and 𝑒𝑚 represents the
extended back-EMF. The SynRM is driven by a three-phase voltage-source inverter (VSI) where the input
power is dc-link voltage. The predicted stator current in the discrete-time form according to (29) is
represented as (30) [25].

𝑝 𝑟𝑠 𝑇𝑠 𝑇𝑠
𝑖𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) = (1 − ) 𝑖𝑚 (𝑛) + (𝑣𝑚 (𝑛) − 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛)) (30)
𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞

𝑝
Where the superscript 𝑝 denotes the predicted value; 𝑖𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) is the predicted value of the stator current;
𝑣𝑚 (𝑛) is the stator voltage; and 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛) is the extended back-EMF. The time delay compensation is taken into
account for the model-based predictive current controller design. Then according to (30), the predictive
current can be expressed as (31) [26].

𝑝 𝑟𝑠 𝑇𝑠 𝑝 𝑇𝑠
𝑖𝑚 (𝑛 + 2) = (1 − ) 𝑖𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) + (𝑣𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) − 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛 + 1)) (31)
𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞

𝑝
Where 𝑖𝑚 (𝑛 + 2) is the predicted stator current; 𝑣𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) is the predicted stator voltage; and 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) is
the future extended back-EMF. The stator voltage is set to be constant because the sampling interval is very
short. Therefore, the stator voltage at the (𝑛 + 1) and (𝑛) sampling intervals are assumed to be the same.
Moreover, in (31), the future extended back-EMF 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) cannot be measured. The extended back-EMF
can be expressed as (32) [27].
𝑟𝑠 𝑇𝑠 +𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞
𝑒𝑚 (𝑛) ≈ 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛 − 1) = 𝑣𝑚 (𝑛 − 1) − ( ) 𝑖𝑚 (𝑛) + 𝑖 (𝑛 − 1) (32)
𝑇𝑠 𝑇𝑠 𝑚

According to (32), assumed 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) ≈ 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛) due to the short sampling interval. Then (31) can be
rewritten as (33) [27].

𝑝 𝑟𝑠 𝑇𝑠 𝑝 𝑇𝑠
𝑖𝑚 (𝑛 + 2) = (1 − ) 𝑖𝑚 (𝑛 + 1) + (𝑣𝑚 (𝑛) − 𝑒𝑚 (𝑛 − 1)) (33)
𝐿𝑞 𝐿𝑞

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 98-108
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  103

The minimum value of the cost function is obtained using a simple mechanism, it is expressed as (34) [25].

∗ 𝑝
𝑘 = |(𝑖𝑚 (𝑛) − 𝑖𝑚 (𝑛 + 2))| (34)

Where the symbol ∗ denotes the reference command. In (34), the cost function is composed of the predicted
current error resulting from the deviation between the current command and the predicted current. The
predictive current is obtained from the d-q axis currents, which is transformed into the a-b-c axis currents.
Then according to (34), an optimal voltage vector can be defined as (35) [25].

𝑘( 𝑛) |𝑆0,...,𝑆7 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛{ 𝑘( 𝑛) |𝑠0 , . . . , 𝑘( 𝑛) |𝑠7 } (35)

The voltage vector obtained from (35) is implemented to manage the six switches of the inverter at the (𝑛)
sampling interval. Then, the model-based predictive current controller is responsible for determining the
switching state of the inverter, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The MBPCC scheme for the SynRM drive

4. IMPLEMENTATION
In the SynRM drives system is composed of two main components, the software and the hardware.
The software is executed by a 32-bit floating-point TMS-320-F-28335 DSP, which is fabricated by Texas
instruments. This DSP is employed to run the MBPC. The sampling interval of the speed-loop is 1 𝑚𝑠 and
the current-loop is 100 𝜇𝑠.
The block diagram of predictive controllers for SynRM drives is shown in Figure 3(a). The control
algorithms in the software programs include the model-based predictive speed- and current-loop controllers,
the d-q axis to a-b-c axis transformation, and a cost function minimization. The control algorithm starts with
∗
the speed command 𝜔𝑟𝑚 (𝑛) is an input command. Then, the MBPC executes the speed-loop to obtain the
optimal value of the 𝑖𝑞 ∗ (𝑛) while the 𝑖𝑑 ∗ (𝑛) is set as a constant. This 𝑖𝑞 ∗ (𝑛) is used for the current command
in the current-loop. The d-q to a-b-c transformation frame is implemented because the current-loop control
algorithm uses the a-b-c frame. By measuring the stator currents at the (𝑛) sampling interval, we are able to
determine the values of the stator currents at the (𝑛 + 2) sampling interval. Finally, a cost function
minimization technique is used to determine the best candidate for the switching function. As the DSP only
execute simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. The computations of the matrix and vector
are converted into simple calculations before the program is implemented.
Figure 3(b) illustrates the implementation of the SynRM drive system. The hardware consists of a
SynRM, a three-phase VSI, some current and voltage sensing circuits, a reshaping circuit of encoder, and an
interface circuit. The SynRM used in this paper is fabricated by Reliance Electric Company, type P56H5012.
The motor parameters are as follows: 𝐿𝑞 = 67.2 𝑚𝐻, 𝐿𝑑 = 148 𝑚𝐻, 𝑅𝑠 = 2.0 𝛺, 4-pole, 3.4 A rated current,
220 V rated voltage, 560 W rated output power, and 1800 r/min rated speed.

Predictive controllers for synchronous reluctance motor drive systems (Muhammad Syahril Mubarok)
104  ISSN: 2088-8694

(a)

電Current
電 電Sensors
電電
DSP
DSP 28335
28335

電電電
Current 電 電Circuit
Sensing 電

電電電
Voltage 電 電Circuit
Sensing 電
電3-phase
電 電Inverter
電電 A/D電 電電電
A/D Converters

(b)

Figure 3. The implemented predictive controllers for SynRM drives: (a) block diagram and (b) hardware

5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
There are several experimental results shown here to validate the proposed MBPC for SynRM drive
systems. The detailed parameters are selected as follows: the d-axis current command 𝑖𝑑∗ = 0.5, the initial
value of Laguerre function 𝐿(0) = 0.71, the prediction horizon 𝑁𝑝 = 1, and the current limitations including
𝛥𝑖𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 = −0.5𝐴, 𝛥𝑖𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.5𝐴, 𝑖𝑞𝑚𝑖𝑛 = −4𝐴, 𝑖𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 4𝐴. The prediction horizon is selected as 1 to
simplify the required computation of the model-based predictive speed controller design.
Figures 4(a) and 4(b) show the predictive controller responses when the motor running from low
speed to the rated speed. The different speed command with step input is given to evaluate the transient
response. As can be observe from those figures, the proposed drive system has an adjustable speed range
from 2 r/min to 1800 r/min with satisfactory performance.

 rm  rm

(r/min) (r/min)
60 2000
1800rpm
1800
50rpm
50
1600 1500rpm

1400
40 1200rpm
1200
30rpm
30 1000
800rpm
20rpm 800
20
600 500rpm
10rpm
10 400
5rpm 200rpm
2rpm 200
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Transient responses at different speeds: (a) low speed and (b) high speed

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 98-108
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  105

Figure 5 show the results of the comparison of the proposed MBPC and the PI controller. These two
controllers operate with and without load. Then, based on the pole assignment technique, the parameters of
the PI current-loop and speed-loop controllers are determined. In this paper, the PI speed-loop controller is
chosen as 𝐾𝑝 = 50 and 𝐾𝑖 = 2. On the other hand, the PI current-loop controller is chosen as 𝐾𝑝 = 50 and
𝐾𝑖 = 5. Figure 5 demonstrates the transient response with step command at 800 r/min. Compared to the PI
controller, the MBPC has a faster transient response, including faster rise time and no overshoot before it
converges to speed command. As well, it is important to note that the integral gain in the PI controller causes
an overshoot in the speed response.
The rise time of the proposed MBPC is 0.9 second, while the PI controller is 1.6 second. The steady
state error of the proposed MBPC is 0.32 r/min, while the PI controller is 6.6 r/min. The load disturbances
responses at 500 r/min are shown in Figure 6 A 1 N.m external load are added to the drive system while it is
running at steady-state. Once again, the proposed controller provides better performance than the PI
controller. The MBPC has a small speed dip and a quick recovery time. Figures 7(a) and 7(b) show the
measured speed responses to the sinusoidal speed commands using two different controllers. As can be
observed, the predictive controller has better tracking responses than the PI controller for both positive half
cycle and negative half cycle. As shown in Figure 8, different controllers are used to track current in the a-
phase circuit. The proposed MBPCC can track the current command very well. Furthermore, the MBPCC has
better current tracking responses and smaller current ripple than the PI controller.
Figures 9(a) and 9(b) show the measured current trajectory in the 𝛼 − 𝛽 frame when using the
predictive controller and the PI controller. In Figure 9(a), the MBPC provides satisfactory current tracking
with little current ripple. However, the PI controller has greater current ripple and has worse current tracking
as shown in Figure 9(b). Figures 10(a) and 10(b) show the measured current errors in the 𝑑 − 𝑞 frame. In
Figure 10(a), the predictive controller has little current error. However, the PI controller has greater current
error in the 𝑑 − 𝑞 frame, which is shown in Figure 10(b). Actually, the current errors in the d-q frame that is
shown in Figures 10(a) and 10(b) have DC offset. The DC offset is caused by the A/D converter does not
convert the exact value at zero points.

 rm  rm

(r/min) (r/min)
900 750

800 Predictive

700
600 PI 500
500 Predictive
PI
400
300 250
200
100
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 5. Comparison of transient responses Figure 6. Load disturbance responses at 1 N.m

 rm  rm

(r/min) (r/min)
250 50

200 PI 0
Predictive Command
150 -50 Predictive

100 -100
Command
PI
50 -150

0 -200

-50 -250
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Speed responses of a sinusoidal commands: (a) positive half cycle and (b) negative half cycle

Predictive controllers for synchronous reluctance motor drive systems (Muhammad Syahril Mubarok)
106  ISSN: 2088-8694

ia ia
A A
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5
0.5

0
0 ia
ia
-0.5
-0.5
ia*
*
-1 ia -1

-1.5
-1.5
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Current tracking responses: (a) predictive and (b) PI

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1 1

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

i ,( A)
i ,( A)
i ,( A)
i ,( A)

0 0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-1 -1 -1 -1

-1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5

-1.5 -1 -0.5 -1.5
0 -1
0.5 -0.5
1 0
1.5 0.5
-1.5 1
-1 1.5
-0.5 -1.5
0 -1
0.5 -0.5
1 1.50 0.5 1 1.5
i , ( A) i , ( A) i , ( A) i , ( A)
(a) (b)

Figure 9. Current trajectories in the 𝛼 − 𝛽 frame: (a) predictive and (b) PI

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1 1
Current error in q-axis, (A)

Current error in q-axis, (A)

Current error in q-axis, (A)

Current error in q-axis, (A)

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0 0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-1 -1 -1 -1

-1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5

-1.5 -1 -0.5 -1.5 0 -1 0.5 -0.51 01.5 0.5 -1.5 1 -1 1.5 -0.5 -1.50 0.5
-1 1
-0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
Current error in d-axis, (A) error in d-axis, (A)
Current Current error in d-axis, (A)
Current error in d-axis, (A)

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Current errors in the 𝑑 − 𝑞 frame: (a) predictive and (b) PI

6. CONCLUSION
The design and implementation of a model-based predictive speed and current controller for a
SynRM drive system is presented in this paper. Experimental results indicate that the proposed controllers are
capable of achieving fast transient response and load disturbances response. In addition, the proposed
controllers achieve wide adjustable speed from 2 r/min to 1800 r/min. In addition, the proposed drive system
tracks the current command very well with small current errors. Although the analysis is complicated, the
realization of the controllers is quite easy by using a DSP. The proposed predictive controllers can be

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 98-108
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  107

implemented in industrial application due to their satisfactory performance. However, the computational
issue of the implemented predictive controllers for SynRM in this paper can be simplified in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under grant MOST
111-2221-E-011-065.

REFERENCES
[1] D. Zhou, J. Zhao, and Y. Li, “Model-Predictive Control Scheme of Five-Leg AC–DC–AC Converter-Fed Induction Motor
Drive,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 4517–4526, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2016.2541618.
[2] I. M. Alsofyani and K.-B. Lee, “A Unidirectional Voltage Vector Preselection Strategy for Optimizing Model Predictive Torque
Control With Discrete Space Vector Modulation of IPMSM,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 12, pp.
12305–12315, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2021.3134087.
[3] S.-W. Park, T.-G. Woo, S.-C. Choi, H.-J. Lee, and Y.-D. Yoon, “Mitigating Rotor Movement During Estimation of Flux
Saturation Model at Standstill for IPMSMs and SynRMs,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1171–
1181, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2022.3159918.
[4] J. Kolehmainen, “Synchronous Reluctance Motor With Form Blocked Rotor,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 25,
no. 2, pp. 450–456, Jun. 2010, doi: 10.1109/TEC.2009.2038579.
[5] J.-B. Im, W. Kim, K. Kim, C.-S. Jin, J.-H. Choi, and J. Lee, “Inductance Calculation Method of Synchronous Reluctance Motor
Including Iron Loss and Cross Magnetic Saturation,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 2803–2806, 2009, doi:
10.1109/TMAG.2009.2018663.
[6] J. Riccio et al., “Modulated Model-Predictive Integral Control Applied to a Synchronous Reluctance Motor Drive,” IEEE Journal
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 3000–3010, Jun. 2023, doi:
10.1109/JESTPE.2023.3245077.
[7] C.-C. Yu, Autotuning of PID Controllers. London: Springer London, 1999. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-3636-1.
[8] K.-K. Shyu and C.-K. Lai, “Incremental motion control of synchronous reluctance motor via multisegment sliding mode control
method,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 169–176, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.1109/87.987062.
[9] F.-J. Lin, M.-S. Huang, S.-G. Chen, C.-W. Hsu, and C.-H. Liang, “Adaptive Backstepping Control for Synchronous Reluctance
Motor Based on Intelligent Current Angle Control,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 7465–7479, Jul.
2020, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2019.2954558.
[10] T. Senjyu, K. Kinjo, N. Urasaki, and K. Uezato, “High efficiency control of synchronous reluctance motors using extended
kalman filter,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 726–732, Aug. 2003, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2003.814998.
[11] M. El Mahfoud, B. Bossoufi, N. El Ouanjli, S. Mahfoud, M. Yessef, and M. Taoussi, “Speed Sensorless Direct Torque Control of
Doubly Fed Induction Motor Using Model Reference Adaptive System,” in Digital Technologies and Applications, Springer,
2021, pp. 1821–1830. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-73882-2_165.
[12] J. Rodriguez and P. Cortes, Predictive Control of Power Converters and Electrical Drives. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2012. doi:
10.1002/9781119941446.
[13] U. R. Muduli and R. Kumar Behera, “High Performance Finite Control Set Model Predictive DTC for Three-to-Five Phase Direct
Matrix Converter Fed Induction Motor Drive,” in 2021 22nd IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT),
Mar. 2021, pp. 198–202. doi: 10.1109/ICIT46573.2021.9453475.
[14] O. Gulbudak and M. Gokdag, “FPGA-Based Model Predictive Control for Power Converters,” in 2020 2nd Global Power,
Energy and Communication Conference (GPECOM), Oct. 2020, pp. 30–35. doi: 10.1109/GPECOM49333.2020.9247873.
[15] O. Gulbudak and E. Santi, “FPGA-Based Model Predictive Controller for Direct Matrix Converter,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 4560–4570, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2016.2546223.
[16] B. Long et al., “Passivity-Based Partial Sequential Model Predictive Control of T-Type Grid-Connected Converters With
Dynamic Damping Injection,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 8262–8281, Jul. 2023, doi:
10.1109/TPEL.2023.3266588.
[17] A. Mora et al., “Optimal Switching Sequence MPC for Four-Leg Two-Level Grid-Connected Converters,” IEEE Journal of
Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, 2023, doi: 10.1109/JESTPE.2023.3265502.
[18] Y. Li, S. Sahoo, T. Dragičević, Y. Zhang, and F. Blaabjerg, “Stability-Oriented Design of Model Predictive Control for DC/DC
Boost Converter,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 922–932, Jan. 2024, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2023.3247785.
[19] J. D. Barros, J. F. A. Silva, and E. G. A. Jesus, “Fast-Predictive Optimal Control of NPC Multilevel Converters,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 619–627, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2012.2206352.
[20] S. H. Kim and K.-K. K. Kim, “Model Predictive Control for Energy-Efficient Yaw-Stabilizing Torque Vectoring in Electric
Vehicles With Four In-Wheel Motors,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 37665–37680, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3266330.
[21] S. Bolognani, S. Bolognani, L. Peretti, and M. Zigliotto, “Design and Implementation of Model Predictive Control for Electrical
Motor Drives,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1925–1936, Jun. 2009, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2008.2007547.
[22] P. G. Carlet, A. Favato, S. Bolognani, and F. Dorfler, “Data-Driven Continuous-Set Predictive Current Control for Synchronous
Motor Drives,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 6637–6646, Jun. 2022, doi:
10.1109/TPEL.2022.3142244.
[23] T.-H. Liu, H. S. Haslim, and S.-K. Tseng, “Predictive speed-loop controller design for a synchronous reluctance drive system,” in
2016 International Symposium on Fundamentals of Electrical Engineering (ISFEE), Jun. 2016, pp. 1–6. doi:
10.1109/ISFEE.2016.7803196.
[24] L. Wang, Model Predictive Control System Design and Implementation Using MATLAB®. London: Springer London, 2009. doi:
10.1007/978-1-84882-331-0.
[25] C.-K. Lin, J. Yu, Y.-S. Lai, and H.-C. Yu, “Improved Model-Free Predictive Current Control for Synchronous Reluctance Motor
Drives,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 3942–3953, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2016.2527629.

Predictive controllers for synchronous reluctance motor drive systems (Muhammad Syahril Mubarok)
108  ISSN: 2088-8694

[26] P. Cortes, J. Rodriguez, C. Silva, and A. Flores, “Delay Compensation in Model Predictive Current Control of a Three-Phase
Inverter,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 1323–1325, Feb. 2012, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2011.2157284.
[27] P. Cortes, J. Rodriguez, D. E. Quevedo, and C. Silva, “Predictive Current Control Strategy With Imposed Load Current
Spectrum,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 612–618, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2007.915605.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Muhammad Syahril Mubarok received his B.A.Sc. degree from the Electronic
Engineering Polytechnic Institute of Surabaya, Indonesia, in 2015, and M.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees in electrical engineering from the National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, in 2018 and 2023, respectively. His research interests include
electric drive systems and model predictive control. Currently, he is a lecturer in the
Department of Engineering, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia. He can be contacted
at email: [email protected].

Nur Vidia Laksmi B. received her B.A.Sc. degree from the Electronic
Engineering Polytechnic Institute of Surabaya, Indonesia, in 2015 and her M.Sc. degree from
the Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology (NTUST), Taiwan, in 2018. Currently, she is a lecturer in the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia. Her research
interests include power electronics, motor drives, and the application of control theories. She
can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Tian-Hua Liu received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST), Taiwan. He is currently a
Distinguished Professor at NTUST. His research interests include motor controls and power
electronics. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 98-108