International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 251~260

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v15.i1.pp251-260  251

Performance analysis of a robust MF-PTC strategy for

induction motor drive

Md. Belal Hossen, Md. Habibullah

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The load model-based conventional predictive torque control (PTC) strategy
performs as a high-performance controller at transient and steady-state
Received Mar 16, 2023 conditions. However, its performance is poor on the issue of parameters
Revised Jun 5, 2023 variation. A robust model-free PTC (MF-PTC) strategy has been proposed in
Accepted Jun 25, 2023 this paper to overcome the aforementioned drawback. An auto-regressive
exogenous (ARX) model instead of a load model has been used to establish
a model-free controller. This model is usually formed based on their input-
Keywords: output transfer function. A recursive least square algorithm has been
employed to estimate the unknown parameters of the ARX model. Then, an
Auto-regressive exogenous observable canonical state-space model uses those estimated parameters to
model achieve an accurate prediction of the control variables. The performance of
Induction motor the proposed scheme can be affected by the variation of resistance.
Model reference adaptive A resistance estimator based on the model reference adaptive system
system observer observer has been applied to improve the robustness of the system against
Model-free predictive torque variation of the stator and rotor resistance, and inductance measurement
control strategy uncertainty. Simulation results show that the proposed MF-PTC scheme is
Recursive least square robust against parameters uncertainty and works well at transient and steady-
algorithm state conditions.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Md. Belal Hossen
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology
Khulna 9203, Bangladesh
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the model predictive control (MPC) strategy has achieved the most popularity in the
application areas of power converters and motor drives, and academic research communities. As per the
name of the controlled variables, this strategy may be divided into predictive torque control (PTC) [1],
predictive current control (PCC) [2], predictive flux control (PFC) [3], [4], and predictive voltage control
(PVC) [5]. The advantages of the control strategies are found as a simple control structure, fast dynamic
response, easy implementation, and flexible inclusion of system nonlinearities and system constraints [6].
However, researchers have found some drawbacks to it, which are computational burden, non-constant
switching frequency, high sampling frequency requirement, issue of parameter variation, and tuning of
nontrivial weighting factors [7]. The effectiveness of the MPC scheme is highly dependent on the system
modeling and parameter mismatch [8]. A model-free PCC (MF-PCC) scheme has been proposed in [9] to
achieve a good steady-state performance of induction motor (IM) drive against parameter variation. Its
performance is satisfactory compared to the PCC scheme, even though the used model parameters are
inaccurate. However, its total harmonic distortion (THD) in stator current is not satisfactory. In [10], a
conventional MF-PCC method is applied to avoid parameters mismatch between a real system and controller.
The method uses an ultra-local (UL) model instead of an IM model, and its state is represented by Heun’s

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

252  ISSN: 2088-8694

theory. The UL model is constructed by a simple function that is only valid within a short time. To estimate
an unknown function of the ultra-local model, a linear extended state observer (LESO) is used in
conventional MF-PCC. Therefore, its control performance is robust against parameter mismatch of the
machine, but tuning controller parameters and tuning of observer gains are not easy task [11]. The estimation
error of the unknown function for an ultra-local model can be enhanced due to its time-varying and nonlinear
nature. To reduce the estimation error, the well-known integral sliding mode observer (ISMO) is
implemented for the model-free predictive control whereas a Lyapunov theory is utilized to maintain the
observer’s stability. However, it is complicated to design and the performance of the controller is highly
affected by the chattering problem [12], [13]. Nowadays, the model-free control approaches have been
presented widely for a resistive-inductive (R-L) load to achieve robust control performance against parameter
uncertainties and parameter variations. Detailed knowledge about the system and system modeling are not
needed in the model-free approaches. These approaches use an auto-regressive exogenous (ARX) structure
instead of the load model, whereas the coefficients of the ARX structure are identified by using the recursive
least squire (RLS) algorithm. These model-free approaches require high sampling frequency for yielding
high-performance control [14]–[16] behavior. A new model-free state-space neural network (ssNN) has been
proposed in [17] for the R-L load to mitigate parameter mismatch between the real system and controller,
where all the weights in ssNN are updated through the particle swarm optimization (PSO) approach.
However, the load current quality is not satisfactory for the controller. The model-free control approach has
been spread for the deadbeat predictive current control (DPCC) [18], deadbeat predictive speed control
(DPSC) [19], and predictive voltage control (PVC) [20] to achieve a reliable control operation under the
external disturbance and parametric uncertainties. The aforementioned three techniques require an algebraic
parameter identification to compute an unknown part of the ultra-local model.
The model-free predictive control for motor drives has two main variants: one is model-free PCC
(MF-PCC), which is discussed in the above paragraphs, and another one is model-free predictive torque
control (MF-PTC). Both strategies can effectively control the torque, flux, and speed under different
operating conditions. In MF-PCC, the motor flux and torque are controlled indirectly by controlling the
motor current. On the other hand, in MF-PTC, the motor flux and torque are controlled directly; thus,
comparatively faster torque response is achieved [21], and less mathematical calculation is required.
Furthermore, the torque control is more significant because an efficient torque controller for motor drive
produces good torque/current and reduces current harmonics, thus increasing the lifetime of the motor.
However, a few works on MF-PTC of IM drive have been published in the literature. Recently, a model-free
parallel PTC has been proposed in [22]. The controller is designed to mitigate the model uncertainty and to
avoid the weighting factor for permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM). However, the ripples in
torque and flux are still high under the operation of model parameter mismatch.
A recursive least square (RLS) parameter identifier for an ARX model is applied to construct a new
model-free PTC proposed in [23]. A resistance estimator is developed based on a support vector regression
(SVR) [24] and a sliding mode observer (SMO) [25]. The estimated resistance is used for computing stator
flux. It is only parametric robustness under no-load and rated speed operation, and its control structure is
more complicated for using several complex mathematical calculations. Another new model-free PTC
proposed in [26] is applied to improve the performance under the rated-load and rated speed operation, where
it is designed based on the fed forward neural network (FFNN) [27] approach. However, the FFNN requires
redundant calculations. As a result, its computational burden is high. In addition, the stator flux estimation
may be inaccurate. It is because the voltage model-based flux estimation depends on the stator resistance
variation. Hence, the controller performance will be degraded against variation of the motor parameters.
Therefore, this paper proposes a new MF-PTC scheme for the two-level voltage source inverter (2L-
VSI) fed 3-phase IM to improve its robustness against stator and rotor resistance variation and also
inductance measurement uncertainty. The proposed scheme uses an ARX model instead of an IM model, an
RLS algorithm for unknown parameter identification of the ARX model, and a computationally simple
MRAS observer-based resistance estimator. Finally, an observable canonical state–space model is used for
the prediction step. This paper is arranged as follows; the proposed robust MF-PTC scheme with ARX
model, RLS parameters identification algorithm, a resistance estimator, and an observable canonical state-
space model are discussed in section 2. The simulation results of this proposed scheme are presented in
section 3. At last, a conclusion is stated in section 4.

2. PROPOSED ROBUST MF-PTC STRATEGY

The proposed robust MF-PTC for 2L-VSI fed IM drive is depicted in Figure 1. The control strategy
mainly consists of a minimization cost function, prediction based on an observable canonical state-space
model and parameter estimation with RLS algorithm, and estimation of stator flux. In order to design a

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 251-260
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  253

model-free approach, an ARX model instead of the IM model has been employed, which is formed based on
a basic relationship between past input and past output. The proposed strategy is described in the
subsequences as follows.

Figure 1. Proposed robust MF-PTC for 2L-VSI fed IM drive

2.1. ARX model structure

A discrete transfer function of an unknown system for output and input is represented by using ARX
model. Here, the output stator current and stator flux are estimated as (1) and (2),

𝐵(𝑧 −1 )
î𝑠 (𝑘) = v𝑠 (𝑘) (1)
𝐴(𝑧 −1 )

𝑁(𝑧 −1 )
𝜓̂𝑠 (𝑘) = v (𝑘) (2)
𝑀(𝑧 −1 ) 𝑠

where v𝑠 (𝑘) is an input voltage vector which is generated by 2L-VSI. The included polynomials
𝐴(𝑧 −1 ), 𝐵(𝑧 −1 ), 𝑀(𝑧 −1 ) and 𝑁(𝑧 −1 ) in the ARX model are written as (3) and (4).

𝐴(𝑧 −1 ) = 1 + 𝑎1 𝑧 −1 + 𝑎2 𝑧 −2 … + 𝑎𝑛𝐴 𝑧 −𝑛𝐴

} (3)
𝐵(𝑧 −1 ) = 𝑏1 𝑧 −1 + 𝑏2 𝑧 −2 … + 𝑏𝑛𝐵 𝑧 −𝑛𝐵

𝑀(𝑧 −1 ) = 1 + 𝑚1 𝑧 −1 + 𝑚2 𝑧 −2 + ⋯ + 𝑚𝑛𝑀 𝑧 −𝑛𝑀

} (4)
𝑁(𝑧 −1 ) = 𝑛1 𝑧 −1 + 𝑛2 𝑧 −2 + ⋯ + 𝑛𝑛𝑁 𝑧 −𝑛𝑁

The unknown parameters of the system in (3) and (4) are defined as 𝑎𝑛 𝐴 , 𝑏𝑛 𝐵 , 𝑚𝑛 𝑀 and 𝑛𝑛 𝑁 ; where
𝑛𝐴 , 𝑛𝐵 , 𝑛𝑀 and 𝑛𝑁 are marked as an order of polynomials. At first, (3) and (4) are substituted into (1) and (2),
then the simplified equations are rewritten as (5) and (6).

𝑖̂𝑠 (𝑘) = −𝑎1 𝑖𝑠 (𝑘 − 1) + ⋯ − 𝑎𝑛𝐴 𝑖𝑠 (𝑘 − 𝑛𝐴 ) + 𝑏1 𝑣𝑠 (𝑘 − 1) + ⋯ + 𝑏𝑛𝐵 𝑣𝑠 (𝑘 − 𝑛𝐵 ) (5)

𝜓̂𝑠 (𝑘) = −𝑚1 𝜓𝑠 (𝑘 − 1) + ⋯ − 𝑚𝑛𝑀 𝜓𝑠 (𝑘 − 𝑛𝑀 ) + 𝑛1 𝑣𝑠 (𝑘 − 1) + ⋯ + 𝑛𝑛𝑁 𝑣𝑠 (𝑘 − 𝑛𝑁 ) (6)

Performance analysis of a robust MF-PTC strategy for induction motor drive (Md. Belal Hossen)
254  ISSN: 2088-8694

The unknown parameters in (5) and (6) are gathered in vectors ɵ𝑖 and ɵ𝜓 respectively as (7) and (8).

𝑇
ɵ𝑖 = [𝑎1 … 𝑎𝑛𝐴 𝑏1 … 𝑏𝑛𝐵 ] (7)

𝑇
ɵ𝜓 = [𝑚1 … . . 𝑚𝑛𝑀 𝑛1 … 𝑛𝑛𝑁 ] . (8)

Similarly, the past known input and output data in (5) and (6) are stored in vectors 𝜑𝑖 and 𝜑𝜓 , which
are introduced as regression vectors shown in (9) and (10).

𝜑𝑖 = [−i𝑠 (𝑘 − 1), … , −i𝑠 (𝑘 − 𝑛𝐴 ), v𝑠 (𝑘 − 1), … , v𝑠 (𝑘 − 𝑛𝐵 )]𝑇 (9)

𝜑𝜓 = [−𝜓𝑠 (𝑘 − 1), … , −𝜓𝑠 (𝑘 − 𝑛𝑀 ), v𝑠 (𝑘 − 1), … , v𝑠 (𝑘 − 𝑛𝑁 )]𝑇 (10)

The gathered unknown parameters in (7) and (8) are easy to estimate by using a RLS algorithm.

2.2. RLS algorithm-based parameter estimation

In this research, the RLS algorithm has been used to estimate the unknown parameters of the ARX
model. No inverse matrix is used in this algorithm; thereby a computational complexity has been reduced. A
mathematical plat form of the RLS algorithm is expressed by a set of equations that is solved recursively.
The estimation of parameters vector ɵ̂𝑖 (𝑘), gain matrix 𝐺𝑖 (𝑘) and covariance matrix 𝑃𝑖 (𝑘) are expressed as
follows only for the step of current estimation.

ɵ̂𝑖 (𝑘) = ɵ̂𝑖 (𝑘 − 1) + 𝐺𝑖 (𝑘)(𝑖𝑠 (𝑘) − 𝜑𝑖 𝑇 (𝑘) ɵ̂𝑖 (𝑘 − 1)) (11a)

𝑃𝑖 (𝑘−1)𝜑𝑖 (𝑘)
𝐺𝑖 (𝑘) = (11b)
𝜑𝑖 𝑇 (𝑘) 𝑃𝑖 (𝑘−1)𝜑𝑖 (𝑘)+𝜆

1 𝑃𝑖 (𝑘−1)𝜑𝑖 (𝑘)𝜑𝑖 𝑇 (𝑘)𝑃𝑖 (𝑘−1)

𝑃𝑖 (𝑘) = [𝑃𝑖 (𝑘 − 1) − ] (11c)
𝜆 𝜑𝑖 𝑇 (𝑘) 𝑃𝑖 (𝑘−1)𝜑𝑖 (𝑘)+𝜆

Where λ is a forgetting factor that is selected by running a heuristic computer simulation. In the
same way, parameters vector ɵ̂𝜓 (𝑘) has been estimated for the step of flux estimation. From (11a), it can be
seen that the parameters vector estimation is an easy task because the instantaneous measured stator current
𝑖𝑠 (𝑘) is available from current sensor. However, instantaneous stator flux is unavailable, which is needed to
estimate the parameters vector in the RLS algorithm. So, in this work, the stator voltage model is applied for
the estimation of stator flux. However, the flux estimation is dependent on the stator resistance. In addition,
the temperature rise changes the stator resistance. As a result, the estimation of the stator flux will not be
accurate. Hence, a MRAS observer-based resistance estimator has been used in order to overcome the
aforementioned problem.

2.3. Stator flux estimation with a resistance estimator

A model reference adaptive system (MRAS) observer presented in [28], [29] has been modified in
the proposed controller to build a resistance estimator as shown in Figure 2, where both the rotor and stator
resistance have been estimated. For the modeling of the resistance estimator, two models are considered
which are adjustable model and reference model. The rotor flux calculation from the stator voltage model is
introduced as a reference model. The expression of the estimated stator flux is defined as (12):

𝜓̂𝑠 = ∫(𝑣𝑠 − 𝑅̂𝑠 𝑖𝑠 )𝑑𝑡 (12)

where 𝑅̂𝑠 , 𝑣𝑠 and 𝑖𝑠 are the estimated resistance, voltage vector, and current vector with respect to the stator
frame. The reference rotor flux calculation based on the above expression can be written as (13):
𝐿𝑟 𝐿 𝐿
𝜓̂𝑟𝑉 = 𝜓̂𝑠 + (𝐿𝑚 − 𝑟 𝑠)𝑖𝑠 (13)
𝐿𝑚 𝐿𝑚

where, 𝐿𝑚 , 𝐿𝑠 , and 𝐿𝑟 are the mutual inductance, stator inductance, and rotor inductance. Similarly, the rotor
flux calculation based on the current model is considered as an adjustable model, which can be expressed
as (14):

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 251-260
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  255
𝐿 1
𝜓̂𝑟𝐼 = ∫( 𝑚 𝑖𝑠 − 𝜓̂𝑟𝐼 ( − 𝑗𝑝𝜔𝑚 ))𝑑𝑡 (14)
𝜏̂𝑟 𝜏̂𝑟

𝐿𝑟
where, 𝜏̂𝑟 = is the estimated rotor time constant and 𝑅̂𝑟 is the estimated rotor resistance; 𝑝 and 𝜔𝑚 denote
𝑅̂𝑟
as number of pole pairs and motor speed. An adaptation mechanism for the stator resistance is expressed
as (15).

𝑒𝑅𝑠 = 𝑅𝑒{(𝜓̂𝑟𝑉 − 𝜓̂𝑟𝐼 )∗ . 𝑖𝑠 } (15)

A proportional-integral (PI) controller is used for estimating the stator resistance, which is presented as (16).

𝑅̂𝑠 = 𝑘𝑝𝑅𝑠 𝑒𝑅𝑠 + 𝑘𝑖𝑅𝑠 ∫ 𝑒𝑅𝑠 𝑑𝑡 (16)

The values of 𝑘𝑝𝑅𝑠 and 𝑘𝑖𝑅𝑠 are 0.8 and 10 which are chosen by running a heuristic computer simulation. The
estimation of rotor resistance may be written as (17),

𝑅 −𝑅 ̂
𝑅̂𝑟 = 𝑅𝑟 + 𝑘𝑟 . 𝑅𝑟 𝑠 𝑠 (17)
𝑅𝑠

where 𝑅𝑟 and 𝑅𝑠 are the nominal value of the rotor and stator resistances, and 𝑘𝑟 is defined as a constant
multiplier which is the ratio of 𝑅𝑠 and 𝑅𝑟 .

Figure 2. Resistance estimator based on the MRAS observer

2.4. Prediction based on observable canonical state-space model

Finally, ARX model (1) and (2) are expressed as an observable canonical state-space model. The
state-space ARX model is shown in (18) and (19).

−𝑎1 1 0 … 0
𝑏1
−𝑎2 0 1 … 0
i𝑠 (𝑘 + 1) = [ ⋮ ] i (𝑘) + [ ⋮ ] v𝑗 (𝑘)
⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 𝑠
𝑏𝑛𝐵
−𝑎𝑛𝐴 0 0 … 0
𝑝
i𝑠 (𝑘 + 1) = [1 0 … 0] i𝑠 (𝑘 + 1) (18)

−𝑚1 1 0 … 0
𝑛1
−𝑚2 0 1 … 0 ̂
𝜓𝑠 (𝑘 + 1) = [ ⋮ (𝑘) + [ ⋮ ] v𝑗 (𝑘)
⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ] 𝜓𝑠 𝑛𝑛𝑁
−𝑚𝑛𝑀 0 0 … 0
𝜓𝑠 𝑝 (𝑘 + 1) = [1 0 … 0] 𝜓𝑠 (𝑘 + 1) (19)

Where v𝑗 (𝑘) is the possible voltage vectors. The predictive torque expression is written in terms of predictive
stator flux and stator current as (20).

Performance analysis of a robust MF-PTC strategy for induction motor drive (Md. Belal Hossen)
256  ISSN: 2088-8694

3
𝑇𝑒 𝑝 (𝑘 + 1) = 𝑝𝐼𝑚{𝜓𝑠 𝑝 (𝑘 + 1)∗ i𝑠 𝑝 (𝑘 + 1)} (20)
2

To generate the reference torque Te*, the error between the measure speed 𝜔𝑚 and the command
speed 𝜔 𝑚 is processed by an anti-windup PI speed controller. The stator reference flux 𝜓𝑠 ∗ is computed
∗

from the motor rating. The model-free cost function is defined as (21).

𝑔𝑀𝐹 = |𝑇𝑒 ∗ − 𝑇𝑒 𝑝 (𝑘 + 1)| + 𝜂𝑝 ||𝜓𝑠 ∗ | − |𝜓𝑠 𝑝 (𝑘 + 1)|| (21)

Where ηp is a weighting factor which is selected by running a heuristic computer simulation.

3. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The simulation of this drive system is done by using MATLAB/Simulink platform. The different
blocks (model-free controller, inverter and induction motor) of Simulink model are depicted in Figure 1.
A sampling time Ts is considered as 40 μs. The stator reference flux 𝜓𝑠 ∗ is set to 1.0 Wb. The polynomial
orders in (3) and (4) are chosen by running heuristic computer simulation, those are 𝑛𝐴 = 3, 𝑛𝐵 = 2, 𝑛𝑀 = 3,
𝑛𝑁 = 2. The parameters of the proposed controller and parameters of a 1.1 KW, 3-φ, 415 V, 50 Hz induction
motor are shown in Table. 1.

Table 1. Motor and controller parameters

Motor parameter Value Controller parameter Value
Rs, Rr 6.03 Ω, 6.085 Ω Kp, Ki for speed controller 0.6, 9.056
Ls, Lr, Lm 0.5192 H, 0.5192 H, 0.4893 H λ, ηp 3, 35
Tnom, ωm, Np, J 7.4 N m, 1415 rpm, 2, 0.011787 Kg m2 Imax 4.5 A

Figure 3 shows the performance of the MF-PTC scheme for the increment of stator resistance by
130% in the motor model applied at time t=2 s. The effect of stator resistance is analyzed with the rated-load
and rated speed as shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that the motor speed is satisfactory before and after the
increment of stator resistance. Moreover, the estimated torque and stator flux follow their respective
references accurately when stator resistance is considered as 100% Rs in the motor model. When the stator
resistance is increased by 130%, the estimated stator flux is decreased gradually and the flux level remains
constant at a lower value. As a result, both the estimated torque and flux do not follow accurately their
respective references. It is also noticeable that THD of the stator current is a slightly big for 130% increment
of the stator resistance. Hence, the controller is not robust in case of stator resistance variation. Therefore, a
resistance estimator has been used with the MF-PTC strategy to make the controller robust against the motor
resistance variation.

Figure 3. Behavior of the motor speed, estimated torque, estimated stator flux, and stator current for 130% of
Rs at time t=2 sec

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 251-260
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  257

Figure 4 presents the effectiveness of this proposed MF-PTC scheme for 130% variation of rotor and
stator resistances in the motor. The motor is operated at full-load and rated speed. Initially, the estimator is
kept ‘on’. It is turned ‘off’ at time 0.8 sec. It is observed that the motor speed response is satisfactory with and
without estimator. However, a small speed dip is seen when estimator is turned off at time 0.8 sec. The motor
speed come backs to its nominal speed of 148.2 r/s within a short time (i.e., 0.13 sec). It can be seen that the
estimated torque and stator flux track properly their respective references because the controller works with
the estimator ‘on’. However, when estimator is ‘off’, the torque and flux are unable to track their respective
references, and their ripples are higher. Moreover, it is noticed that THD of the stator current is slightly bigger
after turning ‘off’ the estimator. It can be seen that the estimated stator and rotor resistance are very close to
130% of Rs and Rr while estimator is kept ‘on’. Hence, the proposed MF-PTC scheme ensures that motor’s
speed, torque, stator flux and current are unaffected by the variation of stator and rotor resistances.
The performance of the proposed MF-PTC scheme for the uncertainty of inductances with 100% of
Rs and Rr is shown in Figure 5. An inductance mismatch of ±10% is considered in 𝐿𝑠 , 𝐿𝑟 and 𝐿𝑚 . Initially,
the controller is operated for 100% of 𝐿𝑠 , 𝐿𝑟 and 𝐿𝑚 . Then, 90%, 100%, and 110% of 𝐿𝑠 , 𝐿𝑟 , and 𝐿𝑚 are
applied respectively at time 0.2 sec, 0.6 sec, and 1.0 sec. It can be observed that no disturbance and
oscillation is seen in speed for these mismatches. Moreover, a constant flux and torque response is noticed in
the estimated flux and torque, and they have good tracking behavior. It can be seen that the THD of the stator
current is similar in the inductance mismatch situations. Therefore, the proposed MF-PTC scheme with a
resistance estimator shows good robustness against inductance measurement uncertainty.

Figure 4. Behavior of the motor speed, torque, stator flux, stator current, and estimated resistances when
estimator is ‘on’ and ‘off’

Figure 5. Behavior of the motor speed, torque, stator flux, and stator current for the inductance mismatch

Performance analysis of a robust MF-PTC strategy for induction motor drive (Md. Belal Hossen)
258  ISSN: 2088-8694

Figure 6 presents the performance of the proposed robust MF-PTC scheme for the rated speed
reversal with full-load. It is analyzed for 130% of Rs and Rr with estimator ‘on’. It can be observed that the
quality of the estimated torque and flux is similar and satisfactory after reverse speed applied at time 0.4 sec.
The estimated torque and flux follow their respective references. However, a small oscillation is seen in the
estimated torque and flux during speed reversal, and then their oscillation becomes stable within a short time
of 0.15 sec. This scenario is existed for flowing high current in motor winding and also changing motor speed
suddenly. Moreover, it can be observed that the THD of the stator current in the steady-state region is slightly
low after speed reversal. It is also noticed that the speed response in both directions is satisfactory.
Figure 7 shows the performance of the proposed MF-PTC scheme against load disturbance. The
controller is executed up to t=0.1 s with the load torque of 3 N-m at rated speed of 148.2 r/s. The load torque
is changed suddenly from 3 N-m to 7.4 N-m (rated load) at time t=0.1 sec. It is noticed that no oscillation is
present in speed after adding full-load. However, a small speed dip is observed in speed curve when full-load
is applied. The motor speed comes back to its nominal speed of 148.2 r/s within a short time (0.18 s). The
estimated torque tracks the reference torque perfectly before and after a step change of load torque, and its
ripple is similar around 1.4 N-m. The estimated stator flux remains constant at nominal flux during the load
change, and its ripple is almost similar before and after a step change of load torque. Moreover, it can be seen
that the current THD is low in full-load operation. Hence, the proposed MF-PTC is robust for changing load
torque suddenly.

Figure 6. Behavior of the motor speed, torque, stator flux, and stator current for the reversal speed

Figure 7. Behavior of the motor speed, torque, stator flux, and stator current for a step change of load torque
at time t=0.1 sec

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 251-260
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  259

4. CONCLUSION
This paper has proposed a robust MF-PTC strategy for a 2L-VSI fed IM drive. The strategy used an
ARX model instead of IM model. A standard parameter identifier RLS algorithm has been employed to
estimate the parameters of ARX model. To obtain an accurate prediction, an observable canonical state-space
model has been used. However, the stator flux estimation of the proposed strategy is dependent on the stator
resistance. Hence, a computationally simple resistance estimator has been used to get a satisfactory
performance of the proposed MF-PTC scheme. Simulation results confirm that the controller is robust against
variation of stator and rotor resistances, inductance measurement uncertainty, and load-disturbance. It is also
shown that the performance of the proposed scheme is satisfactory for the reverse speed operation.

REFERENCES
[1] M. Habibullah, D. D. C. Lu, D. Xiao, and M. F. Rahman, “A Simplified Finite-State Predictive Direct Torque Control for
Induction Motor Drive,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 3964–3975, 2016, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2016.2519327.
[2] C. S. Lim, N. A. Rahim, W. P. Hew, M. Jones, and E. Levi, “Model predictive current control of a five-phase induction motor,” in
IECON 2011 - 37th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Nov. 2011, pp. 1934–1940, doi:
10.1109/IECON.2011.6119602.
[3] D. Xiao, K. S. Alam, I. Osman, M. P. Akter, S. M. Showybul Islam Shakib, and M. F. Rahman, “Low Complexity Model
Predictive Flux Control for Three-Level Neutral-Point Clamped Inverter-Fed Induction Motor Drives without Weighting Factor,”
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 6496–6506, 2020, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2020.3016617.
[4] M. Habibullah, D. D. C. Lu, D. Xiao, J. E. Fletcher, and M. F. Rahman, “Low complexity predictive torque control strategies for
a three-level inverter driven induction motor,” IET Electric Power Applications, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 776–783, 2017, doi:
10.1049/iet-epa.2016.0572.
[5] S. A. Hamad, W. Xu, A. Diab, M. M. Ali, and S. A. Bukhari, “Model Predictive Voltage Control for Linear Induction Machine
Without Weighting Factor,” 2021 13th International Symposium on Linear Drives for Industry Applications, LDIA 2021, 2021,
doi: 10.1109/LDIA49489.2021.9506003.
[6] M. Habibullah, D. Xiao, M. F. Rahman, and D. D. C. Lu, “Predictive torque control of induction motor drive,” Modeling,
Simulation and Control of Electrical Drives, pp. 545–577, 2019, doi: 10.1049/pbce118e_ch15.
[7] Y. Zhang, B. Xia, H. Yang, and J. Rodriguez, “Overview of model predictive control for induction motor drives,” Chinese
Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 62–76, 2016, doi: 10.23919/CJEE.2016.7933116.
[8] M. Khalilzadeh, S. Vaez-Zadeh, J. Rodriguez, and R. Heydari, “Model-Free Predictive Control of Motor Drives and Power
Converters: A Review,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 105733–105747, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3098946.
[9] X. Wang, Y. Zhang, H. Yang, B. Zhang, J. Rodriguez, and C. Garcia, “A Model-Free Predictive Current Control of Induction
Motor Based on Current Difference,” 2020 IEEE 9th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference, IPEMC
2020 ECCE Asia, pp. 1038–1042, 2020, doi: 10.1109/IPEMC-ECCEAsia48364.2020.9368240.
[10] Y. Zhang, X. Wang, B. Zhang, and H. Yang, “A Robust Model-Free Predictive Current Control of Induction Motor Drives,” 2019
22nd International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems, ICEMS 2019, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ICEMS.2019.8921533.
[11] Y. Zhang, X. Wang, H. Yang, B. Zhang, and J. Rodriguez, “Robust predictive current control of induction motors based on linear
extended state observer,” Chinese Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 94–105, 2021, doi:
10.23919/CJEE.2021.000009.
[12] M. S. Mousavi, S. Alireza Davari, V. Nekoukar, C. Garcia, and J. Rodriguez, “Model-Free Predictive Control Based on the
Integral Sliding Mode Observer for Induction Motor,” 2022 13th Power Electronics, Drive Systems, and Technologies
Conference, PEDSTC 2022, pp. 113–117, 2022, doi: 10.1109/PEDSTC53976.2022.9767413.
[13] M. S. Mousavi, S. A. Davari, V. Nekoukar, C. Garcia, and J. Rodriguez, “Integral Sliding Mode Observer-Based Ultralocal
Model for Finite-Set Model Predictive Current Control of Induction Motor,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in
Power Electronics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2912–2922, 2022, doi: 10.1109/JESTPE.2021.3110797.
[14] J. Rodriguez, R. Heydari, Z. Rafiee, H. Young, F. Flores-Bahamonde, and M. Shahparasti, “Model-Free Predictive Current
Control of a Voltage Source Inverter,” IEEE Access, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3039050.
[15] R. Heydari, H. Young, Z. Rafiee, F. Flores-Bahamonde, M. Savaghebi, and J. Rodriguez, “Model-Free Predictive Current Control
of a Voltage Source Inverter based on Identification Algorithm,” IECON Proceedings (Industrial Electronics Conference), vol.
2020-Octob, pp. 3065–3070, 2020, doi: 10.1109/IECON43393.2020.9254834.
[16] C. Gonzalez-Castano, M. Norambuena, F. Flores-Bahamonde, H. Young, R. Heydari, and J. Rodriguez, “Model-Free Predictive
Current Control based on ARX Representation of a Seven-Level Inverter,” IECON Proceedings (Industrial Electronics
Conference), vol. 2022-Octob, 2022, doi: 10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968395.
[17] S. Sabzevari, R. Heydari, M. Mohiti, M. Savaghebi, and J. Rodriguez, “Model-free neural network-based predictive control for
robust operation of power converters,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 8, 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14082325.
[18] Y. Zhou, H. Li, and H. Zhang, “Model-free deadbeat predictive current control of a surface-mounted permanent magnet
synchronous motor drive system,” Journal of Power Electronics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 103–115, 2018, doi:
10.6113/JPE.2018.18.1.103.
[19] Y. Zhou, H. Li, H. Zhang, J. Mao, and J. Huang, “Model Free Deadbeat Predictive Speed Control of Surface-Mounted Permanent
Magnet Synchronous Motor Drive system,” Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 265–274, 2019,
doi: 10.1007/s42835-018-00022-8.
[20] M. S. Mousavi, S. Alireza Davari, V. Nekoukar, C. Garcia, and J. Rodriguez, “Model-Free Finite Set Predictive Voltage Control
of Induction Motor,” 2021 12th Power Electronics, Drive Systems, and Technologies Conference, PEDSTC 2021, 2021, doi:
10.1109/PEDSTC52094.2021.9405823.
[21] H. Guzman et al., “Comparative study of predictive and resonant controllers in fault-tolerant five-phase induction motor drives,”
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 606–617, 2016, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2015.2418732.
[22] M. Lv, S. Gao, Y. Wei, D. Zhang, and H. Qi, “Model-Free Parallel Predictive Torque Control Based on Ultra-Local Model of
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine,” Actuators, vol. 11, no. 2, 2022, doi: 10.3390/act11020031.

Performance analysis of a robust MF-PTC strategy for induction motor drive (Md. Belal Hossen)
260  ISSN: 2088-8694

[23] H. Young et al., “Model-free Predictive Torque Control of an Induction Machine Based on Parameter Estimation,” 6th IEEE
International Conference on Predictive Control of Electrical Drives and Power Electronics, PRECEDE 2021, pp. 725–731, 2021,
doi: 10.1109/PRECEDE51386.2021.9681044.
[24] Bergstra J and Bengio Y, “Random search for hyper-parameter optimization,” Journal of machine learning research, vol. 13, no.
2, pp. 281–305, 2012.
[25] Zhang Yan and V. Utkin, “Sliding mode observers for electric machines-an overview,” in IEEE 2002 28th Annual Conference of
the Industrial Electronics Society. IECON 02, 2002, vol. 3, pp. 1842–1847, doi: 10.1109/IECON.2002.1185251.
[26] M. Norambuena and D. Galvez, “Model Free Artificial Neural Network for an Induction Machine,” in 2023 IEEE Conference on
Power Electronics and Renewable Energy (CPERE), Feb. 2023, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/CPERE56564.2023.10119541.
[27] D. Wang et al., “Model Predictive Control Using Artificial Neural Network for Power Converters,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 3689–3699, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2021.3076721.
[28] F. Wang, Z. Chen, P. Stolze, J. F. Stumper, J. Rodriguez, and R. Kennel, “Encoderless finite-state predictive torque control for
induction machine with a compensated MRAS,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1097–1106,
2014, doi: 10.1109/TII.2013.2287395.
[29] F. Wang et al., “An encoderless predictive torque control for an induction machine with a revised prediction model and
EFOSMO,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 6635–6644, 2014, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2014.2317140.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Md. Belal Hossen graduated with a B.Sc. degree in Electrical & Electronic
Engineering from the American International University-Bangladesh (AIUB), Dhaka,
Bangladesh in 2013. He obtained his M.Sc. degree in Electrical & Electronic Engineering
from Khulna University of Engineering & Technology (KUET), Bangladesh in 2019. He is
currently pursuing his Ph.D. degree in the Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering at KUET, Bangladesh, where he is also working as a Ph.D. Fellowship. His
research interests are artificial neural network, power electronics, and electrical machine
drives. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Md. Habibullah received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Electrical & Electronic
Engineering from Khulna University of Engineering & Technology (KUET), Bangladesh in
2008 and 2012, respectively. He obtained his Ph.D. degree in the School of Electrical and
Information Engineering from The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia in 2016. He is
currently a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at KUET,
Khulna, Bangladesh. His research interests are power electronics, control applications,
electrical drives, renewable energy, and smart microgrids. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2024: 251-260