International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2024, pp. 2049~2057

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v15.i4.pp2049-2057  2049

Overview: Model predictive control techniques for controlling

induction motor based on vector control

Moataz M. A. Alakkad1, Md. Hairul Nizam Talib1, Zulhani Rasin1, Jurifa Mat Lazi1,
Muhammad Haziq Md. Jamal1, Zainuddin Mat Isa2
1
Faculty of Electrical Technology and Engineering (FTKE), Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Electrical Engineering & Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Arau, Malaysia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This paper presents a comprehensive review of electric induction motor (IM)
drive systems. It conducts an evaluation and critical analysis of modern
Received Nov 14, 2023 control techniques aimed at enhancing induction motors or IM drive
Revised Mar 21, 2024 performance, drawing insights from a systematic literature survey. This
Accepted Apr 24, 2024 review paper introduces the mathematical and dynamic models of induction
motors and control via two-level inverter drives. Furthermore, the paper offers
an extensive review of model predictive control (MPC) for induction motors
Keywords: which is considered a vector control (VC) technique. The MPC are
subdivision based on control parameters into two modes, model predictive
Induction motor current control (MPCC) and model predictive torque control (MPTC). The
Model predictive control paper thoroughly examines each control technique, providing insights into
Model predictive current control mathematical control analysis, block diagrams, and operational mechanisms,
Model predictive torque control as well as the advantages and disadvantages associated with the method. The
Vector control model predictive control (MPC) stands out due to its distinct advantages,
particularly in terms of simplicity, accuracy, and efficiency.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Md Hairul Nizam Talib
Faculty of Electrical Technology and Engineering (FTKE), Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
Melaka,76100 Hang Tuah Jaya, Durian Tunggal, Melaka, Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
The induction motors (IMs) stand out as the most prevalent choice for electric drive systems due to
their affordability in manufacturing and maintenance. IMs exhibit robustness under diverse operational and
environmental conditions, making them suitable for hazardous environments [1]. However, IMs are known for
their nonlinear mechanical characteristics and historical challenges in speed control, limiting their use to
industries without stringent speed control requirements. Advancements in power electronics and
microprocessor technologies have ushered in various speed control techniques for IMs [2]. The model
predictive control (MPC) represents a highly advanced and evolving technique for electric motor control. Over
the past few decades, MPC has undergone significant advancements and gained prominence [3]. In the context
of MPC, it is important to note that there are two distinct topologies: Model predictive torque control (MPTC)
and model predictive current control (MPCC). MPC stands out for its ability to optimize control actions over
a finite prediction horizon. It leverages a mathematical model of the system to predict the future behavior of
the motor and utilizes this information to compute optimal control inputs [4]. MPC considers various
constraints and objectives, allowing for precise tuning of motor performance while ensuring that operational
limits are not exceeded. It is particularly valuable in applications where dynamic and constrained motor control
is essential, adapting to varying operating conditions and providing precise control of motor behavior [4]-[8].

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

2050  ISSN: 2088-8694

MPTC and MPCC are two subcategories of MPC, each tailored to specific control objectives. MPTC
primarily focuses on optimizing the torque production of the motor, ensuring that it operates at peak efficiency
while adhering to operational limits [9]. On the other hand, MPCC centers on controlling the stator currents of
the motor, enabling fine-grained control over the motor's electrical characteristics [10]. Both MPTC and MPCC
offer unique advantages and are suited to various motor control applications, further expanding the capabilities
of MPC in the field of electric drives and motors. This paper contributes and congregates the advantages and
disadvantages of vector control strategies, especially MPC techniques. The main challenges of the motor drive
techniques centered on the time response and the resultant torque ripple as well as the total harmonic distortion
of output current. The previous work of induction motor drives was focused on proposed several models in
order to minimize both time response and the resultant torque ripple.
In this paper: i) section 2 discusses the mathematical model and dynamic model for the induction motor,
ii) section 3 declares the mathematical model for two-level three-phase inverters for induction motor drives, and iii)
section 4 focuses on classifying the MPC technique for the induction motor and they advantage and disadvantages.

2. INDUCTION MOTOR
The mathematical model of an induction motor can be simplified using space-vector theory, converting
three-phase variables into vector quantities [11]. Following the magnitude invariant principle, the equations for
a squirrel-cage induction motor are as (1)-(5) [12]. Where 𝑉𝑠 are stator voltage. 𝜓𝑠 and 𝜓𝑟 are stator flux and
rotor flux, respectively. 𝐼𝑠 and 𝐼𝑟 are stator current and rotor current, respectively. 𝑅𝑠 and 𝑅𝑟 are stator resistance
and rotor resistance, respectively. 𝐿𝑠 , 𝐿𝑟 and 𝐿𝑚 are stator inductance and rotor Inductance, mutual Inductance,
respectively. 𝜔 are electrical speed. 𝑝 are a number of pole pairs. 𝑇 are electromagnetic torque.
𝑑𝜓𝑠
𝑉𝑠 = 𝑅𝑠 . 𝐼𝑠 + (1)
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝜓𝑟
0 = 𝑅𝑠 . 𝐼𝑠 + − 𝑗. 𝜔. 𝜓𝑟 (2)
𝑑𝑡

𝜓𝑠 = 𝐿𝑠 . 𝐿𝑠 + 𝐿𝑚 . 𝐼𝑟 (3)

𝜓𝑟 = 𝐿𝑟 . 𝐿𝑟 + 𝐿𝑚 . 𝐼𝑠 (4)
3
𝑇 = . 𝑝. |𝜓𝑠 . 𝐼𝑠 | (5)
2

The dynamic model of an induction motor can be expressed differently depending on the reference
frame selected. Using the stator reference frame and considering the direct and quadrature components (dq-
axis) for stator current (𝑖𝑠 ) and rotor flux 𝜓𝑟 as state variables. The dynamic equations can be formulated in
state-space representation using complex vector notation as in (6) and (7) [13]. These equations provide an
accurate description of the electromagnetic behavior of the induction machine and involve four state variables,
two inputs, and two outputs [14]. Where 𝑋 are the components of state variables, 𝑢 are the components of input
stator voltage and 𝑦 are the components of the output stator current.

𝑋(𝑡) = 𝐴. 𝑥(𝑡) + 𝐵. 𝑢(𝑡) (6)

𝑌(𝑡) = 𝐶. 𝑥(𝑡) + 𝐷. 𝑢(𝑡) (7)

Matrices A, B, C, and D can be determined as (8)-(14).

𝑋 = [𝑖𝑠𝑑 𝑖𝑠𝑞 𝜓𝑠𝑑 𝜓𝑠𝑞 ] (8)

𝑢 = [𝑉𝑠𝑑 𝑉𝑠𝑞 ]𝑇 (9)

𝑌 = [𝑖𝑠𝑑 𝑖𝑠𝑞 ]𝑇 (10)

−1 𝐾𝑟 𝐾𝑟
0 . 𝜔𝑟
𝜏𝜎 𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎 .𝜏𝑟 𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎
−1 −𝐾𝑟 𝐾𝑟
0 . 𝜔𝑟
𝜏𝜎 𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎 𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎 .𝜏𝑟
𝐴= 𝐿𝑚 −1 (11)
0 𝜔𝑟
𝜏𝑟 𝜏𝑟
𝐿𝑚 −1
[0 𝜏𝑟
𝜔𝑟
𝜏𝑟 ]

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2024: 2049-2057
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2051
1
0
𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎
1
𝐵= 0 (12)
𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎
0 0
[ 0 0 ]
1 0 0 0
𝐶=[ ] (13)
0 1 0 0
0 0
𝐷=[ ] (14)
0 0
In which 𝑘𝑟 is the rotor coupling factor that can be defined as in (15), 𝑅σ represents the equivalent
resistance that can be defined as in (16), 𝐿σ is the leakage inductance of the machine that can be defined as in
(17), 𝜏σ is the stator transient time constant that can be defined as in (18), and 𝜏𝑟 is the rotor time constant that
can be defined as in (19).
𝐿𝑚
𝐾𝑟 = (15)
𝐿𝑟

𝑅 = 𝐾𝑟2 . 𝑅𝑟 (16)
𝐿2𝑚
𝐿𝜎 = 𝐿𝑟 (1 − ) (17)
𝐿𝑟

𝐿𝜎 𝐿𝜎
𝜏𝜎 = 𝜏 = (18)
𝑅𝜎 𝜎 𝑅𝜎

𝐿𝑟
𝜏𝑟 = (19)
𝑅𝑟

Hence, the physical-mathematical model of an induction motor is described as (20)-(24) [15].

𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑑 1 𝐾𝑟 .𝜓𝑟𝑑 𝑢𝑠𝑑
=− . 𝑖𝑠𝑑 + 𝜔𝑠 . 𝑖𝑠𝑞 + + (20)
𝑑𝜏 𝜏𝜎 𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎 .𝜏𝑟 𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎

𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑞 1 𝜔𝐾𝑟 .𝜓𝑟𝑑 𝑢𝑠𝑞

= −𝜔𝑠 . 𝑖𝑠𝑞 − . 𝑖𝑠𝑞 − + (21)
𝑑𝜏 𝜏𝜎 𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎 𝑅𝜎 .𝜏𝜎

𝑑𝜓𝑟𝑑 1 𝐿𝑚
=− . 𝜓𝑟𝑑 + . 𝑖𝑠𝑑 (22)
𝑑𝜏 𝜏𝜎 𝜏𝑟

𝑑𝜔 𝑓𝑑 3𝑝
𝑑𝑡
= 𝐽𝑒
.𝜔 + 2𝐿 . 𝜓𝑟𝑑 . 𝑖𝑠𝑞 − 𝑇𝐿 (23)
𝑟 .𝐽𝑒

𝑑𝜃
=𝜔 (24)
𝑑𝑡

For model parameter notation, 𝜔 are motor shaft velocity; 𝜃 are motor shaft angle; 𝜔𝑠 are synchronous speed;
𝐽𝑒 and 𝑓𝑑 are inertia and friction coefficient, respectively; 𝑝 are number of pole pairs; 𝑇𝐿 are load torque.

3. INVERTER MODEL
In general, the inverter model is classified into two main types based on the waveform power output.
These types are centered in two-level output voltage source inverters (2L-VSI) and multilevel output voltage
source inverters (ML-VSI) [16]. The 2L-VSI has fixed structure topology which can change only based on the
number of output phases. On other hand the ML-VSI have several topologies that can classified based on
structure topology and the number of output levels [17]. The inverter converts the DC power into a variable-
frequency AC output, allowing precise control of the motor's speed and torque [18]. The Inverters provide the
ability to control the speed of the motor by varying the frequency and voltage of the AC output. This is crucial
in applications where the motor needs to operate at different speeds or ramp up and down smoothly, such as in
industrial processes, heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, or electric vehicles [19], [20].
It enables energy-efficient operation by adjusting the motor's speed and power output according to the load
requirements. By running the motor at the optimal speed for the task, energy consumption is minimized,
resulting in energy and cost savings. This allows for precise control of motor parameters, including speed,
torque, and direction [21]. This level of control is valuable in applications where accuracy and consistency are
paramount, such as robotics and conveyor systems. Moreover, the inverters can gradually start and stop the
Overview: Model predictive control techniques for controlling induction motor … (Moataz M. A. Alakkad)
2052  ISSN: 2088-8694

motor, reducing mechanical stress and wear and tear. This soft-start capability extends the motor's lifespan and
reduces maintenance costs [22], [23].
The 2L-VSI is widely used in drive applications for inverting electrical power into AC form due to
the simplicity of producing the signal control, high dynamic performance, and extensive availability [24]. In a
typical drive configuration of this inverter type is utilized to provide power to an induction machine are shown
in Figure 1(a) that consists of two switches per phase resulting in a total of eight possible switching states for
a three-phase system, as outlined in Table 1. These switching states are determined by the gating signals 𝑆𝑎 ,
𝑆𝑏 , and 𝑆𝑐 [25]. This inverter configuration can generate eight distinct voltage vectors, as depicted
in Figure 1(b).

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Two levels voltage source inverter where (a) is the two-level three-phase inverter circuit diagram
and (b) is the vector control diagram

Table 1. Two levels voltage source inverter switching state

Phase switches Voltage vector
𝑉0 𝑉1 𝑉2 𝑉3 𝑉4 𝑉5 𝑉6 𝑉7
Sa 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
Sb 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
Sc 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

The system allows for the identification of six active voltage vectors (𝑉1 , 𝑉2 , 𝑉3 , 𝑉4 , 𝑉5 , and 𝑉6 ) and
two zero vectors (𝑉0 and 𝑉7 ) within this system. The different switching states can be represented using a vector
notation, as (25).
2
𝑆 = (𝑆𝑎 + 𝑆𝑏 . 𝛼 + 𝑆𝑐 . 𝛼 2 ) (25)
3

Where 𝛼 = 𝑒 𝑗2𝜋/3 . Therefore, the output voltage space vectors that can be generated by the two-level voltage
source inverter are defined as (26).
2
𝑉 = (𝑣𝑎 + 𝑣𝑏 . 𝛼 + 𝑣𝑐 . 𝛼 2 ) (26)
3

Where va , vb , and vc are the phase voltages of the inverter. These can be computed in relation to the switching
states Sa,b,c as (27) [26].

𝑉𝑎,𝑏,𝑐 = 𝑉𝑑𝑐 . 𝑆𝑎,𝑏,𝑐 (27)

These output voltage vectors (va , vb and vc ) are expressed in a stationary αβ-frame. To convert this
voltage into a synchronous dq-frame aligned with the rotor flux, the Clarke transformation method is utilized.
This method facilitates the calculation of the applied stator voltage, which can be expressed as (28). Where the
Clarke transformation coefficient can be expressed as (29).

𝑉𝑎,𝑏,𝑐 = 𝑉𝑑𝑐 . 𝑆𝑎𝑏𝑐 . 𝑇𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒 (28)

−√3 √3
2 0
𝑇𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒 = [ 2 2] (29)
3 −1 −1
1
2 2

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2024: 2049-2057
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2053

4. MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL (MPC)

The MPC is a highly efficient strategy for controlling a wide range of industrial applications. It has
proven to be effective in managing processes with various characteristics, including those with long delay times,
nonminimum phase behavior, instability, multivariable interactions, constraints, and even complex and hybrid
systems [27]. The fundamental concept behind predictive control is to utilize a plant model to predict future
system outputs. Based on these predictions, an online optimization process is used at each sampling interval to
compute a sequence of future control inputs. This sequence is designed to optimize tracking performance while
adhering to any imposed constraints. However, only the first control input from this sequence is applied to the
plant. This process is repeated in a receding horizon fashion at each subsequent sampling interval [28].
MPC has gained widespread adoption in the industry as an effective approach for addressing complex
multivariable control problems with constraints. The MPC algorithm relies primarily on three key elements:
the internal dynamic model of the process, a history of past control moves, and the optimization cost function
applied over the prediction horizon [3]. In practice, there are two primary types of MPC controllers, which are
categorized based on the reference parameters used for control prediction: model predictive torque control
(MPTC) and model predictive current control (MPCC) [29].

4.1. Model predictive current control (MPCC)

In this type of MPC, the cost function substituted the inner current of PI controller based on the current
error. It also called predictive field-oriented controller (PFOC) due to the controlling of the motor parameters
is based on the stator current as like the FOC controller [30]. Figure 2 shows the block diagram of the MPCC
technique that consists of two PI controllers that are used to control the torque and flux of current components,
Park to Clarke angle transformation that is used to convert the current form d-q components reference frame
into α-β component to use as input parameter of cost function [31]. The cost function predicates the optimum
voltage vector and generates the best pulse width modulation signal [29]. The pulse width modulation signal
is used to control the voltage source inverter (VSI).

Figure 2. The block diagram of the MPCC technique

The reference stator current can be calculated from both of torque reference and rotor flux reference
in which the 𝑖𝑑 are purely depends on the rotor flux reference which can be calculated as (30)-(34) [10]. While
𝑖𝑞 are depends on both of rotor flux reference and torque reference which can be calculated as (30)-(34).
𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝑟𝑒𝑓 |𝜓𝑟 |
𝑖𝑑 = (30)
𝐿𝑚

𝑟𝑒𝑓 2𝐿𝑟 𝑇 𝑟𝑒𝑓

𝑖𝑞 = . (31)
3𝐿𝑚 |𝜓𝑟𝑒𝑓 |
𝑟

The stator current is predicted based on (32).

𝑇𝑠 𝑇𝑠 1
𝑖𝑠 𝑛+1 = (1 − ). 𝑖𝑠 𝑛 + . ( − 𝐽. 𝜔𝑛 ). 𝜓𝑟𝑛 + 𝑣𝑠𝑛 (32)
𝜏𝜎 𝜏𝜎 .𝑅𝜎 𝑇𝑠

While the cost function is applied to the system only to consider the stator current error in the form of α-β
component frame as (33).

𝑔𝑗 = ∑𝑛ℎ=1[|𝑖𝛼 𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑖𝛼 (ℎ+𝑛) | + |𝑖𝛽 𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑖𝛽 (ℎ+𝑛) |] (33)

Overview: Model predictive control techniques for controlling induction motor … (Moataz M. A. Alakkad)
2054  ISSN: 2088-8694

Where ℎ is the predictive horizon. Finally, the optimal vectors are selected based on the minimum value of the
cost function, in which the best switching signal can be generated for the vectors that generate a lower cost
value [4]. The (34) represented the formula of optimal vector selection for MPCC.

𝑣𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑀 𝑖𝑛{𝑣0,𝑣1 ,....,𝑣7} 𝑔(𝑣𝑠 𝑘+1 ) (34)

4.2. Model predictive torque control (MPTC)

In this type of MPC, the cost function is formed based on both torque reference and flux directly without
calculating the stator current components [32]. Figure 3 shows the block diagram of the MPTC technique that
consists of one PI controller that is used to calculate the torque reference form the speed reference while the
reference flux of stator is delivered directly to the cost function [33]. The actual flux for stator and rotor needs
to be estimated from the generated current of VSI to predict the stator flux, while the actual torque is predicted
using stator current and rotor speed [34]. The cost function predicates the optimum voltage vector and generates
the best pulse width modulation signal [35]. The pulse width modulation signal is used to control the VSI.
Observer that no need to use Park to Clarke angle transformation to convert the current form d-q components
reference frame into α-β component which is not considered on the cost function formula.

Figure 3. The block diagram of the MPTC technique

Basically, the designing of MPTC techniques has three main steps: i) Estimate the variable that can
normally be measured directly such as the actual flux of stator and rotor [36]; ii) Predict the stator flux and
torques in which the prediction can be figured out using discretization methods such as forwarded Euler
approximation method or another method as reviews on discretization methods section [37]; and iii) Design
the cost function that is used to predict the optimal space vector.
The cost function on the MPTC method is formed based on the error of toque and the error of stator
flux which can be represented as (35) [32].

𝑔𝑗 = ∑𝑛ℎ=1[|𝑇 𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑇 (ℎ+𝑛) | + 𝑊𝑓 |𝜓𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝜓𝑠 (ℎ+𝑛) |] (35)

Where ℎ is the predictive horizon and 𝑊𝑓 are the weighting factor. Finally, the optimal vectors are selected
based on the minimum value of the cost function, in which the best switching signal can be generated for the
vectors that generate a lower cost value [38]. The (36) represented the formula of optimal vector selection for
MPTC.

𝑣𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 𝑎𝑟𝑔 𝑀 𝑖𝑛{𝑣0,𝑣1,....,𝑣7} 𝑔(𝑣𝑠 𝑛+1 ) (36)

MPC is a control technique with both merits and limitations. Understanding these aspects is crucial
for its effective application [29], [39]-[41]. The advantages of MPC for driving the induction motor centered
on offering a comprehensive approach to efficiently control parameters for multiple variables, making it a
valuable tool for complex processes. One of its key strengths is the ability to consider actuator constraints,
ensuring safe and optimal control while maximizing profits by operating near system limits. MPC excels in
swift online computations and is particularly effective in controlling non-minimal phase and unstable
processes. Its advantage lies in its relative ease of tuning for desired performance and adaptability to handle
structural changes or system variations. This versatility makes MPC a powerful choice for advanced control
applications. While the MPC offers significant advantages, also comes with its share of disadvantages. One
notable drawback is its inherent complexity, often requiring more time for intricate online calculations,

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2024: 2049-2057
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2055

particularly when constraints need to be considered. Moreover, the effectiveness of MPC is heavily dependent
on having a highly accurate process model. Any disparities between the model and the real process can
significantly affect the quality of control, making the reliance on precise modeling a potential limitation.

5. CONCLUSION
The mathematical representation of an induction motor model using space vector quantities offers a
simplified approach and effectively describes the motor's behavior under both transient and steady-state
conditions. The dynamic representation of an induction motor can take different forms based on the selected
reference frame. Control techniques for induction motors can be categorized into scalar control principles and
vector control principles. Vector control techniques encompass control methods that utilize vector
transformations for the variables of the induction motor. The MPC is considered a vector control technique.
The MPC can be classified in both MPTC and MPCC. variants offer notable advantages in terms of
simplicity, accuracy, and efficiency. MPC operates by predicting future switching signals for inverter switches
using a cost function formula. This prediction is based either on current vectors in both stationary and rotational
frames (as in MPCC) or on reference values and actual values for torque and stator flux (as in MPTC). While
MPTC requires careful weighting factor adjustments to achieve better optimization and control of the relative
importance of torque and flux error minimization objectives, MPCC eliminates the need for weighting factors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding support provided by the Universiti Teknikal
Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) and the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia under the research grant No:
FRGS/1/2020/FKE-CERIA/F00419.

REFERENCES
[1] E. Agamloh, A. von Jouanne, and A. Yokochi, “An overview of electric machine trends in modern electric vehicles,” Machines,
vol. 8, no. 2, p. 20, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.3390/machines8020020.
[2] J. A. Melkebeek, Electrical machines and drives. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72730-
1.
[3] M. M. M. S. El Shormbably, “Model predictive control of induction motor drives,” King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
(Saudi Arabia), 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.proquest.com/openview/525a16fc2771596334ffefccf2fcdfd6/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y
[4] H. Wang, X. Chen, Y. Liu, M. Su, W. Feng, and W. Yu, “Model predictive control of three-phase voltage-source converters with
improved tracking performance,” ISA Transactions, vol. 133, pp. 424–434, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2022.07.012.
[5] M. Hassan et al., “A look-up table-based model predictive torque control of IPMSM drives with duty cycle optimization,” ISA
Transactions, vol. 138, pp. 670–686, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2023.02.007.
[6] S. U. Ali, A. Waqar, M. Aamir, S. M. Qaisar, and J. Iqbal, “Model predictive control of consensus-based energy management
system for DC microgrid,” PLOS ONE, vol. 18, no. 1, p. e0278110, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278110.
[7] I. Hammoud et al., “On continuous-set model predictive control of permanent magnet synchronous machines,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 10360–10371, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2022.3164968.
[8] N. Kumar, B. Singh, and B. K. Panigrahi, “Voltage sensorless based model predictive control with battery management system: for
solar PV powered on-board EV charging,” IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 2583–2592, Jun.
2023, doi: 10.1109/TTE.2022.3213253.
[9] A. Boyar, E. Kabalcı, and Y. Kabalcı, “Model predictive torque control-based induction motor drive with remote control and
monitoring interface for electric vehicles,” Electric Power Components and Systems, vol. 51, no. 18, pp. 2159–2170, Nov. 2023,
doi: 10.1080/15325008.2023.2211581.
[10] 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.
[11] T. Asikainen, “Parameter estimation of induction machines,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-
202009136979
[12] K. Sundareswaran, “Induction motor fundamentals,” in Elementary concepts of power electronic drives, CRC Press, 2019, p. 14.
[Online]. Available: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.1201/9780429423284-9/induction-motor-fundamentals-
sundareswaran
[13] N. Farah, M. H. N. Talib, Z. Ibrahim, J. M. Lazi, and M. Azri, “Self-tuning fuzzy logic controller based on Takagi-Sugeno applied
to induction motor drives,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1967–1975,
Dec. 2018, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v9.i4.pp1967-1975.
[14] N. F. Djagarov, H. A. Milushev, M. B. Bonev, Z. G. Grozdev, and J. V. Djagarova, “Adaptive vector control of induction motor
drives,” in 2019 8th International Conference on Power Science and Engineering (ICPSE), Dec. 2019, pp. 29–34. doi:
10.1109/ICPSE49633.2019.9041180.
[15] A. Gholipour, M. Ghanbari, E. Alibeiki, and M. Jannati, “Sensorless FOC strategy for current sensor faults in three-phase induction
motor drives,” Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi:
10.22098/JOAPE.2022.9274.1648.
[16] M. M. A. Alakkad, Z. Rasin, M. Rasheed, and R. Omar, “Harmonic minimization using artificial neural network technique for
CHB-ML inverter,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference in Power Engineering Application (ICPEA), Mar. 2021, pp. 12–17.
doi: 10.1109/ICPEA51500.2021.9417759.

Overview: Model predictive control techniques for controlling induction motor … (Moataz M. A. Alakkad)
2056  ISSN: 2088-8694

[17] M. M. A. Alakkad, Z. Rasin, and W. A. Halim, “Investigation on total harmonics distortion for transistor clamped cascaded H-
Bridge multilevel inverter using newton-raphson method,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference in Power Engineering
Application (ICPEA), Mar. 2022, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICPEA53519.2022.9744670.
[18] H. Matsumori, T. Kosaka, N. Matsui, and S. Saha, “Alternative PWM switching strategy implementation for a dual inverter fed
open winding motor drive system for an electric vehicle application,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 59, no. 5,
pp. 5957–5970, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2023.3291340.
[19] M. S. Choudhary et al., “Solar powered space vector pulse width modulation based induction motor drive for industry applications,”
Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1828–1836, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.11591/eei.v11i4.3023.
[20] T. Li, J. Gudex, R. Olson, H. Abdallah, R. M. Cuzner, and J. Katcha, “Modeling and validation of common-mode emissions of SiC
MOSFET-based voltage source inverter motor drive,” in 2023 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC),
Mar. 2023, pp. 56–63. doi: 10.1109/APEC43580.2023.10131302.
[21] W. Wang, Y. Liu, Y. Chen, and C. Liu, “Optimization-based duty cycle allocation for a five-leg inverter to drive two electric
motors,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 11327–11337, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2023.3287469.
[22] A. Alahmad and F. Kacar, “Simulation of induction motor driving by bridge inverter at 120°, 150°, and 180° operation,” in 2021
8th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICEEE), Apr. 2021, pp. 121–125. doi:
10.1109/ICEEE52452.2021.9415930.
[23] S. M. El-koliel, H. Eleissawi, and A. S. Nada, “Speed control of electrical submersible pumps using fuzzy logic control,”
International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2515–2528, Dec. 2022, doi:
10.11591/ijpeds.v13.i4.pp2515-2528.
[24] Z. Dong, H. Wen, T. Wang, B. Zhang, Z. Song, and C. Liu, “Common-mode voltage reduction-based space vector modulation
strategy for three-phase two-level inverter with delta-connected loads,” in 2023 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on Industrial
Electronics (ISIE), Jun. 2023, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ISIE51358.2023.10228124.
[25] T.-D. Duong, M.-K. Nguyen, T.-T. Tran, D.-V. Vo, Y.-C. Lim, and J.-H. Choi, “Topology review of three-phase two-level
transformerless photovoltaic inverters for common-mode voltage reduction,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 3106, Apr. 2022, doi:
10.3390/en15093106.
[26] T. Qanbari, B. Tousi, and M. Farhadi-Kangarlu, “A novel vector-based pulse-width modulation for three-phase two-level voltage
source inverters,” Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering (JOAPE), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 50–60, 2023, doi:
https://doi.org/10.22098/joape.2023.9997.1708.
[27] F. Ahmed, L. Sobiesiak, and J. R. Forbes, “Cascaded model predictive control of a tandem-rotor helicopter,” IEEE Control Systems
Letters, vol. 7, pp. 1345–1350, 2023, doi: 10.1109/LCSYS.2023.3237954.
[28] Z. Cui, Z. Zhang, T. Dragicevic, and J. Rodriguez, “Dynamic sequential model predictive control of three-level NPC back-to-back
power converter PMSG wind turbine systems,” in IECON 2020 The 46th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society, Oct. 2020, pp. 3206–3211. doi: 10.1109/IECON43393.2020.9255096.
[29] T. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z. Li, C. Hu, and F. Wang, “Comparison and analysis of predictive control of induction motor without
weighting factors,” Energy Reports, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 558–568, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.03.046.
[30] M. Costin and C. Lazar, “Field-oriented predictive control structure for synchronous reluctance motors,” Machines, vol. 11, no. 7,
p. 682, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3390/machines11070682.
[31] Y. Zhang, J. Jin, and L. Huang, “Model-free predictive current control of PMSM drives based on extended state observer using
ultralocal model,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 993–1003, Feb. 2021, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2020.2970660.
[32] S. Jaman et al., “Comparative performance assessment of predictive torque control strategy for motor drive applications,” in IECON
2022 – 48th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Oct. 2022, pp. 1–6. doi:
10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968403.
[33] R. Alik, N. R. N. Idris, N. M. Nordin, and S. M. Ayob, “Online tuning weighting factor for a predictive torque control of induction
motor drive,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon), Dec. 2022, pp. 225–229. doi:
10.1109/PECon54459.2022.9988878.
[34] J. Rodas et al., “Weighting-factorless sequential model predictive torque control of a six-phase AC machine,” in 2023 IEEE
Conference on Power Electronics and Renewable Energy (CPERE), Feb. 2023, pp. 1–5. doi:
10.1109/CPERE56564.2023.10119622.
[35] Y. Zhang, Z. Yin, W. Li, J. Liu, and Y. Zhang, “Adaptive sliding-mode-based speed control in finite control set model predictive
torque control for induction motors,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 8076–8087, Jul. 2021, doi:
10.1109/TPEL.2020.3042181.
[36] M. S. Mousavi et al., “Predictive torque control of induction motor based on a robust integral sliding mode observer,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 2339–2350, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2022.3169831.
[37] M. Khosravi, D. Arab Khaburi, M. Alikhani, and M. Yousefzade, “Two‐stage deadbeat‐based predictive torque control strategy for
modular multilevel converter‐fed three‐phase induction motors,” IET Electric Power Applications, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 20–41, Jan.
2024, doi: 10.1049/elp2.12363.
[38] S. T. Ramsham and S. Lakhimsetty, “Fuzzy-logic speed controller for 3-level open-end winding induction motor drive with
predictive torque control technique,” in 2022 Second International Conference on Power, Control and Computing Technologies
(ICPC2T), Mar. 2022, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/ICPC2T53885.2022.9776783.
[39] M. F. Elmorshedy, W. Xu, F. F. M. El-Sousy, M. R. Islam, and A. A. Ahmed, “Recent achievements in model predictive control
techniques for industrial motor: a comprehensive state-of-the-art,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 58170–58191, 2021, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3073020.
[40] H. A. G. Al-Kaf and K.-B. Lee, “Fast dynamic field-oriented control using direct large voltage vector and hysteresis switch,” in
2023 11th International Conference on Power Electronics and ECCE Asia (ICPE 2023 - ECCE Asia), May 2023, pp. 3057–3062.
doi: 10.23919/ICPE2023-ECCEAsia54778.2023.10213539.
[41] G. Bai, Y. Meng, L. Liu, W. Luo, Q. Gu, and L. Liu, “Review and comparison of path tracking based on model predictive control,”
Electronics, vol. 8, no. 10, p. 1077, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.3390/electronics8101077.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2024: 2049-2057
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  2057

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Moataz M. A. Alakkad was born in Khan Yunis, Gaza strip, Palestine in 1995. He
received the B.E. degree in power electrical engineering from Quaid-e-Awam University of
Engineering, Sciences & Technology, Nawabshah, Pakistan in 2019 and the M.E. from the
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), Melaka,
Malaysia in 2022. Currently, he is a Ph.D. scholar in the Faculty of Electrical Engineering,
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), Melaka, Malaysia. His research interests include
multilevel inverters, power electronic converters, AI, power control, and renewable energy. His
research interests are on the electric drive application and induction motor. He can be contacted
at email: [email protected].

Md. Hairul Nizam Talib is a senior lecturer at Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
(UTeM). He received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM), Johor, Malaysia, in 1999, his M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, in 2005, and his Ph.D. from Malaysia in 2016. His main research
interests include power electronics, fuzzy logic control, and electrical motor drives. He can be
contacted at email: [email protected].

Zulhani Rasin joined Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) in 2006 and
obtained his Ph.D. from University of New South Wales, Australia in 2006. Currently, he is a
senior lecturer in the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
(UTeM). His research interest is mainly in the field of power electronics and drives, focusing on
photovoltaic inverter systems, and energy storage management for electrical drive systems. In
teaching, he is in charge of the Power Electronics and Electrical Drive courses. Apart from that
he is currently the editor of the International Journal of Electrical Engineering and Applied
Sciences (IJEEAS) since 2017. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Jurifa Mat Lazi received her bachelor's and master's degrees in Electrical
Engineering from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in 2001 and 2003 respectively. She received his
Ph.D. degree from University Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka in 2016. She has served as
an academic staff at Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) since 2001 and she is currently
a senior lecturer and head of Industrial Training Coordinator in the Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, UTeM. Her research interests include machine drives, sensorless and PMSM drives,
and power electronics. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Muhammad Haziq Md. Jamal was born in 1997, and received a bachelor’s degree
in Electrical Engineering from Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka in Melaka, Malaysia.
Currently, he is doing a master’s degree in Electrical Engineering at the Universiti Teknikal
Malaysia Melaka. His research interests in power electronics, vehicle drive, and control. He can
be contacted at email: [email protected].

Zainuddin Mat Isa is a senior lecturer at Universiti Malaysia Perlis, specializing in

Electrical Engineering. He holds a Master of Science (M.Sc.) degree in Electrical Engineering
from Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (2006) and a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering
degree from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (2001). With over 15 years of teaching experience,
Zainuddin has been actively involved in shaping the minds of aspiring engineers. His research
interests encompass power electronics, optimization, and renewable energy. Zainuddin's
dedication to his field and passion for sustainable solutions drive his contributions to academia
and the development of efficient and clean power generation methods. He can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Overview: Model predictive control techniques for controlling induction motor … (Moataz M. A. Alakkad)