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

net/publication/355037144

Model-Free Predictive Current Control of Synchronous Reluctance Motors Based

on a Recurrent Neural Network

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · October 2021

DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480

CITATIONS READS

0 78

4 authors, including:

Hamza Mesai Ahmed Imed Jlassi

University of Sidi-Bel-Abbes Universidade da Beira Interior
10 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   450 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

A.J.M. Cardoso
Universidade da Beira Interior
487 PUBLICATIONS   8,875 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Power Supplies View project

Multi physics-Based Thermal Analysis of HighReliability Motor Drives for Electrical Vehicles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Imed Jlassi on 26 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Model-Free Predictive Current Control of

Synchronous Reluctance Motors Based on
a Recurrent Neural Network
Hamza Mesai-Ahmed, Imed Jlassi, Antonio J. Marques Cardoso, Senior Member, IEEE,
Abderrahim Bentaallah

Abstract – Recently, model-based predictive current ψd, ψq dq-axes flux linkage (Wb)
vd, vq dq-axes stator voltages (V)
control (MB-PCC) has been presented as a good ωe Rotor electrical angular speed (rad/s)
alternative to classical control algorithms in terms of Te, TL Electromagnetic torque, Load torque (N.m)
simplicity and performance reliability. However, MB-PCC Ts Sampling period (μs)
suffers from the high dependence on system parameters, xi Plant state vector
which may deteriorate its performance under parameters Xi Estimated state
variations. On the other hand, Synchronous Reluctance wi Weights vector
Motors (SynRMs) are susceptible to suffer from ϖi Constant value
inductances variations due to the magnetic saturation. ηi Learning rate
ϑk Input vector
Accordingly, in this paper a new model-free predictive ψi, ɸi, δi Vector functions
current control of SynRMs based on a recurrent neural ei Real error
network (RNN-PCC) is developed and proposed. The Pi Prediction error
proposed RNN-PCC relies on the identification of the Hi Gradient matrix
SynRM currents without considering any parameters. Qi, Ri Covariance matrices
Simulation and experimental results show that both RNN- Ki EKF gain matrix
PCC and MB-PCC have similarly excellent dynamics, while S Bound function
better control performance and tracking errors can be Li RNN weights number
m Number of external inputs
achieved thanks to the proposed RNN-PCC. n State dimension
dij Nonnegative integers
Index Terms —Model-free predictive control, Recurrent Bi Number of connections
neural network, Synchronous reluctance motor. ℓi Variable state
α, β Constant values
NOMENCLATURE
I. INTRODUCTION

S
* Reference value superscript
id, iq dq-axes stator currents (A) YNCHRONOUS reluctance motors (SynRMs) became
im Maximum current (A) very attractive in industry applications during recent years
Rs Stator resistance (Ω) due to their sturdy characteristics, simple structure, and high-
Ld , Lq dq-axes inductances (H) efficiency operation even at high temperatures. Nowadays,
SynRMs are a good alternative to induction motors (IMs) and
This work was supported by the European Regional Development permanent-magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) [1]-[3]. On
Fund (ERDF) through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness
and Internationalization (COMPETE 2020), under Project POCI-01-
the other hand, model-based predictive current control (MB-
0145-FEDER-029494, and by National Funds through the FCT - PCC) has recently becoming a powerful advanced control
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under Projects technology in industrial drives. As opposed to classical vector
PTDC/EEI-EEE/29494/2017, UIDB/04131/2020, and and direct control techniques, the MB-PCC has an excellent
UIDP/04131/2020.
Hamza Mesai-Ahmed is with ICEPS Laboratory, University of dynamic, straight-forward concept, and the ability to easily
Djillali Liabes, BP 98 Sidi Bel-Abbes, Algeria, and also with CISE - include multi-nonlinear constraints into the cost function;
Electromechatronic Systems Research Centre, Universidade da Beira Interior, being these characteristics extremely desired for a wide range
Covilhã, Portugal (email: hamza.mesai_ahmed@univ-sba.dz).
Imed Jlassi and A. J. M. Cardoso are with CISE - Electromechatronic of applications [4]-[9].
Systems Research Centre, Universidade da Beira Interior, Calçada Despite the many benefits of the MB-PCC strategies, they
Fonte do Lameiro, P-6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal (e-mail: are highly dependent on the system parameters. Consequently,
i.jlassi@ubi.pt; ajmcardoso@ieee.org).
Abderrahim Bentaallah is with ICEPS Laboratory, University of
such parameter uncertainties negatively affect the control
Djillali Liabès, BP 98 Sidi Bel-Abbes, Algeria (e-mail: performance, increasing both ripples and tracking errors [4].
abderrahim.bentaallah@univ-sba.dz).

0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Apart from the MB-PCC drawbacks, an important issue that
is related to SynRMs is the inductances variations due to the
magnetic material saturation. In fact, an important part of these
machines is made of ferromagnetic materials with nonlinear
magnetic characteristics, that saturate when the total
magnetomotive force increases by the increase of the motor
currents [3], [10]. Consequently, SynRMs control performance
is drastically affected in terms of precision and dynamics.
Thus, an accurate control of SynRMs under magnetic
saturation requires a detailed knowledge of the magnetic
behavior at different operating conditions. Several predictive
control schemes considering the magnetic saturation have been
proposed in [11]-[16], where the inductances evolutions were
identified through several experiments, and stored in the main
control system as variable quantities, resulting in a time-
consuming task and requiring a complex process. Furthermore,
they require additional equipment such as measuring
instruments and power supplies to obtain the profile of the
inductances. On the other hand, self-commissioning are
simpler and faster techniques for the motor parameters
identification [17]-[19]. However, these techniques require the
motor model, and the parameters identification inaccuracy
directly affects the control performance.
More recently, some studies propose the model-free
predictive current control method (MFPCC) as an efficient
alternative solution to avoid the issue of prior knowledge of
the system model, being therefore not affected by the
parameters variation. The MFPCC has been proposed in [20]
for PMSM drives, in which two lookup tables (LUTs) are
adopted to store the dq currents variations data, caused by the
set of the eight voltage vectors applied in each control period,
being used later to predict the optimal voltage vector,
according to the pre-defined cost function. However, the stored
information becomes irrelevant if the respective voltage vector
is not applied for many sequential sampling periods, allowing
a current stagnation and affecting the control performance.
Later, similar approaches have been applied to SynRMs [21]-
[23], as well as to PMSMs [24], with the aim to minimize the
influence of the stagnation problem. In [21] it was proposed
the updating of the LUTs by modifying the cost function in
order to apply voltage vectors not considered for a long time;
however this kind of updating is still not sufficient. The
method reported in [21] has been extended in [24], which does
not consider the cost function modification, reducing therefore
the stagnation effect. The updating of the LUTs by the current
variation reconstruction based on the last three applied voltage
vectors is proposed in [22], [23]. However, unsatisfactory
control performance is obtained.
In [25], another MFPCC approach based on an ultra-local
model has been proposed for PMSM drives. Nevertheless,
poor control performance can be achieved, especially at low
sampling frequencies. The improved version of this method is
employed then with an extended state observer [26], and
applied later for DFIG drives [27], [28].
0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
To the authors’ knowledge, there are only few papers
reporting on the application of model-free predictive control in
electrical machine drives. Furthermore, most of MFPCC
schemes suffer either from the stagnation problem or the poor
control performance. Developing a new approach to derive the
current prediction can overcome the mentioned problems.
Nowadays, the application of artificial intelligence methods,
particularly neural network (NN) approaches, is increased
rapidly in the field of power electronics and machine drives
[29]. In particular, NN methods with offline training processes
have been used in several applications, including systems
identification [30], [31], and control laws implementation [32]-
[34]. However, they require a large amount of training based
on the historic data, being therefore computationally
demanding and time-consuming. Recently, the combination of
neural networks with predictive current control (NN-PCC) is
employed for grid power and frequency regulation [35] with
the aim to avoid the prior knowledge of the system’s model.
However, apart from the offline data training issues, this
method is ineffective when the system parameters change,
which requires further pre-training considering the parameters
variation.
On the other hand, the recurrent neural network (RNN) with
online training based on an extended Kalman filter (EKF) is a
simple and an effective NN structure for non-linear systems
[36], which can avoid the issues of the historic data
requirements and the sensibility against the parameter
variations [35]. However, a combination of NN-PCC that
presents high control performance with low complexity and
computational burden is not reported yet in the literature.
Accordingly, in this paper, a new model-free predictive current
control based on a recurrent neural network (RNN-PCC) for
SynRM drives is proposed. The aim of this technique is to
introduce a new current prediction model derived by the RNN
identifier, in which only the measured states are used, instead
of that based on the system parameters as in the conventional
MB-PCC. The proposed control skips all the effects of
parameters variations or mismatches, as well as of model
nonlinearity and uncertainties. Consequently, the influence of
the SynRM parameters variation as well as the stagnation
problem can be totally avoided, while best control performance
is achieved. The overall control process of the proposed RNN-
PCC can be summarized in the following steps: 1)
measurement of the currents and speed; 2) application of the
optimal voltage vector, calculated in the previous sampling
period; 3) prediction of the currents at the (k+1)th sampling
period, by the recurrent neural network for the optimal voltage
vector; 4) prediction of the currents at the (k+2)th sampling
period, by the recurrent neural network for all possible
switching states; 5) evaluation of the predicted currents
through the cost function and selection of the optimal voltage
vector. The effectiveness of the proposed method is confirmed
by means of simulation and experimental results.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

II. MODEL-BASED PREDICTIVE CURRENT CONTROL 2 2

g  id*  id , k  2   iq*  iq , k  2   im (4)
Since the MB-PCC is not the contribution nor the focus of
this paper, the magnetic saturation and iron losses effects of 
, if ik  2  imax
the SynRM are ignored in the MB-PCC algorithm for the sake where im   , ik  2  id2, k  2  iq2, k  2
of simplicity. Therefore, the stator voltage equation in the 
 0, otherwise .


synchronous rotating frame can be expressed as follows [11]: In the SynRM control scheme, the reference current iq* is
did diq
vd  Rs id  we Lq iq  Ld , vq  Rs iq  we Ld id  Lq (1) generated by the speed controller, while id* is derived from iq*
dt dt
considering the maximum torque per ampere (MTPA) strategy
where Ld  yd / id and Lq  yq / iq are the direct and quadrature in [3], defined as:
inductances, respectively, independent from flowing currents, id*  0.0589iq*2  1.0515iq*  0.2374 (5)
ydq denotes the flux linkage in the dq-axes reference frame, idq It is important to emphasize that (5) is dedicated for the used
stands for the stator current in the dq-axes reference frame, Rs SynRM in this paper, which requires a previous knowledge of
is the stator resistance, and ωe is the electrical rotor angular the machine saturation characteristic. The MTPA strategy has
speed. been proposed and explained in a more detailed way in [3].
In the MB-PCC, the discrete version of (1), using the Current im stands for the SynRM overcurrent protection. If the
standard Euler approximation, can be expressed as:
SynRM current exceeds the limit value, the corresponding
  RT  Lq T voltage vector would be ignored.
id , k 1  1 s s  id , k  weTs iq , k  s vd , k
  Ld   Ld Ld
 (2) III. MODEL-FREE PREDICTIVE CURRENT CONTROL
  R T  L T

 iq , k 1  1 s s  iq , k  weTs d id , k  s vq , k A. Recurrent neural network with online training:
  Lq  Lq Lq
 The recurrent neural network model is one of the most
where Ts is the sampling period, id,k and iq,k are the measured widespread NN used models for systems state identification
stator currents at kTs, and νd,k and νq,k are the constructed stator [38]. It is more practical for discrete-time systems that demand
voltages from the optimal voltage vector applied in the (k)th adaptability to different operating conditions. In this study, the
sampling period. RNN is proposed to identify the SynRM three-phase currents
In a real-time implementation, the calculation time of the without considering the system parameters.
control algorithm forces one-step time delay, which must be
compensated [37]. Therefore, the predicted currents at the A.1. RNN identifier for unknown plan
(k+2)th control period id,k+2 and iq,k+2 are used instead of id,k+1 A discrete-time nonlinear system can be defined as in [39]:
and iq,k+1, respectively, which can be derived in a similar way xk +1 = F ( xk ,ϑk ) (6)
to (2):
To identify the variables states of the considered system in
  RT  Lq T (6) taking into account the dynamic approximation issue, a
id , k  2  1 s s  id , k 1  weTs iq , k 1  s vd , k 1
 
 Ld   Ld Ld series-parallel RNN configuration is proposed as in [40]:

  R T 
(3) = X i ,k +1 wiT Φ ( xk ,ϑk ) + ϖ iTψ ( xk ,ϑk ) , i = 1,……, n (7)
  iq , k 1  weTs L T
 iq , k  2  1 s s d
id , k 1  vq , k 1
s
  Lq  Lq Lq where xk = [x1,k, x2,k , . . . , xn,k ] is the plant state vector, Xi is

the estimated state of the ith neuron, which corresponds the ith
where id,k+1 and iq,k+1 are predicted in (2), and νd,k+1 and νq,k+1 component of state vector xk in (7), wi ∈ 𝕽𝕽Li is the vector of
are constructed from the eight voltage vectors that the adjustable weights, ϖi are matrices with constant values, ϑ ∈
converter can synthesize. 𝕽𝕽m is the input vector, ψi denotes a linear function, and ɸi ∈
As previously mentioned, when the SynRM currents 𝕽𝕽Li is the corresponding vector function, which can be defined
increase the material saturation appears, provoking a variation as:
of the inductances values. On the other hand, it can be verified  ∏ δ dij (1) 
from (3) that the resistance variation has a very small effect on  Φi   j∈I1 i j 
the dynamic model accuracy and, in fact, its error can be  1   dij (2) 
neglected. However, errors in the inductance value have a
 Φi2   ∏ j∈I 2 δ i j 
Φi ( xk=
, ϑk ) =    (8)
more serious effect [6].    
 
In order to select the optimal voltage vector that minimizes    dij ( Bi ) 
the errors between the predicted currents in (3) and their ΦiBi  ∏ j∈I Bi δ i j 
associated references, the following cost function is defined:

0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

where dij,k are nonnegative integers, Bi is the number of

connections, {I1, I2, . . . .IBi} is a collection of non-ordered
subsets of {1, 2, . . . , n + m}, n is the state dimension, m is the
number of external inputs, and δi is presented as:

 δi 
 1   S ( x1 )  Fig.1 Training algorithm scheme.
     
 δ    Generally, the RNN states are initialized as zero and the
 in   S ( xn )  covariance matrices Pi,k , Qi,k , and Ri,k are diagonals. In fact,
= δ i =   ϑ  (9)
δ there are available several studies that explain in detail the
 in +1   1  training as well as the convergence analysis of the RNN
     
    identifier based on the EKF technique [41], [36]. Fig. 1 shows
δ i   ϑm  the training algorithm scheme considered in this study.
 n+m  In the final step, the RNN identifier model can be derived
where ϑi= [ϑ1, ϑ2 ... ϑm] T are the RNN external inputs and S(•) from (7), (8) and (9) as follow:
can be described as follows:
X i , k +1 = wi1S ( xi , k ) + wi 2 S ( x j , k ) + wi 3 S ( x j +1, k ) + 
S (  i ) = α i tanh ( βi  i ) with α and β > 0   (10) (17)
 + wiz S ( x j + ( z −1), k ) + ϖ iϑi , k
where ℓ is the variable state.
where Xi denotes the estimated state, z is the number of state, xi
A.2. EKF training algorithm is the respective real state, xj+(z-1) denotes the remaining states
The RNN representing the system model is trained online with (j ≠ i), and ϑi,k is the respective input voltage.
through the EKF training algorithm. The EKF-based training is
B. Proposed RNN-MPC for the SynRM machine:
the most well-known online approach, being the fastest one in
the learning process, by converging in less iterations as In conventional MB-PCC, prior knowledge of the system
compared with other methods [41]. The main objective of the model, as well as accurate parameter values are mandatory.
training procedure is to reduce the prediction error between the However, the parameters of the SynRM change with the
real and estimated states (xi and Xi), by generating the adaptive working conditions, which may negatively affect its control
weights corresponding to the respective state for the ith neuron. performance. Therefore, to achieve high control performance,
The EKF training algorithm is defined by the following the proposed model-free RNN-PCC comes to be an obvious
equations [38], [41]: choice. Only the measured data from the drive are required,
avoiding therefore the machine parameters knowledge. Using
e= xi , k − X i , k (11) the proposed control, the parameter-based predictive currents
i,k
expressions in conventional MB-PCC will be compensated by
Ki,k = Pi , k H i , k M i−, k1 (12) the ones derived by the proposed RNN identifier.
wi , k= wi , k + ηi Ki , k ei , k (13) According to (17), the proposed predictive currents at the
+1
(k+1)th sampling period are defined as:
Pi ,k − Ki ,k H iT,k Pi ,k + Qi ,k
Pi ,k +1 = (14) id , k + wd 1Ts S (id , k ) + wd 2ωeTs S (iq , k ) + ϖ d Ts vd , k
id , k +1 =
 (18)
M=
i,k Ri , k + H iT, k Pi , k H i , k (15) iq , k + wq1Ts S (iq , k ) + wq 2ωeTs S (id , k ) + ϖ qTs vq , k
 iq , k +1 =
where ei,k ∈𝕽𝕽 is the real error, Pi,k+1 ∈ 𝕽𝕽Li*Li is the prediction In a similar way to (3), the dq-axes currents should be
error, Li is the RNN weights number, ηi is the learning rate, wi predicted at the (k+2)th sampling period [37], using the
∈ 𝕽𝕽Li denotes the weights matrix which is considered as the following expression:
system state for the EKF, Ki, k ∈ 𝕽𝕽Li×m is the EKF gain matrix, id , k +1 + wd 1Ts S (id , k +1 ) + wd 2ωeTs S (iq , k +1 ) + ϖ d Ts vd , k +1
id , k + 2 =
Qi,k ∈ 𝕽𝕽Li*Li and Ri,k ∈ 𝕽𝕽m*m are the covariance matrices, Hi,k ∈ 
𝕽𝕽Li*m is a gradient matrix, in which each entry (Hij,k) is the iq , k +1 + wq1Ts S (iq , k +1 ) + wq 2ωeTs S (id , k +1 ) + ϖ qTs vq , k +1
 iq , k + 2 =
derivative of one RNN state Xi relative to one RNN weight (19)
wij,k, and calculated as follows: where wd,i and wq,i are updated in real time by the EKF
using the error between measured and estimated currents.
T Based on the RNN-PCC definition the proposed RNN
 ∂X i , k 
H ij , k =  (i=1,2,..,n) and (j=1,2,..,Li) (16) identifier does not require pre-training before implementation,
 ∂wij , k  w = wi , k +1
wherein the initial weights are chosen randomly and the ϖd and
i,k ϖq in (18) and (19) are considered equal to ϖd=10, and ϖq=30,

0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
respectively. On the other hand, the covariance matrixes in
(14) and (15) are set to Qi=1000 and Ri=100. It must be
noticed that the selection of ϖd and ϖq is very important since
they have a strong impact on the control performance, whereas
the values of Ri and Qi have a direct relation with the dynamic
of the EKF. The definition of these values is accomplished
using trial and error procedures, by analyzing the control
performance for different operating conditions, taking into
account the dynamic model accuracy as well as the low current
ripple. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that these
values are chosen constant in order to give the best possible
performance as well as to simplify the controller design.
In contrast to the conventional MB-PCC using (1)-(3), the
RNN-PCC in (18) and (19) does not use any machine
parameters. Then, in a similar way to the MB-PCC the optimal
voltage vector of the RNN-PCC is selected by minimizing the
cost function as in (4) and considering the MTPA strategy
defined in (5). The diagram scheme of the proposed RNN-PCC
algorithm is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 Block diagram of the proposed RNN-PCC.
AC Load Machine Torque Sensor Encoder
Diode Bridge Rectifier Inverter Voltages & Currents Sensors Protection Relay
Fig. 3 Experimental setup.
TABLE I PARAMETERS OF THE USED 2.2 KW SYNRM.
Speed N 1500 rpm Torque TL 14 N.m
Voltage V 366 V Inductances Ld/Lq 0.24/0.057 H
Current I 5.7 A Stator resistance Rs 1.72 Ω
0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IV. SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The modeling and simulation of the SynRM drive system as
well as the proposed control schemes were carried out in
Matlab/Simulink environment. The machine dynamic model
takes into account the magnetic saturation and iron losses, as
described in [3]. Table I shows the parameters of the SynRM.
The experimental test rig involves basically a 2.2 kW SynRM
(with the same parameters reported in Table I) connected to an
AC load machine, a Powerex POW-R-PAK voltage source
inverter, a diode bridge rectifier, and a dSPACE DS1103
controller. Fig. 3 shows the experimental setup.
A. Computational burden and complexity:
The conventional MB-PCC and the proposed model-free
RNN-PCC algorithms are separately implemented under a
Matlab/Simulink environment into the dSPACE controller,
using a sampling period of Ts = 45 μs. The computational time
requirement of each algorithm is shown in detail in Table II.
Based on the MB-PCC, a time of 27.1 μs is needed to execute
the code in each Ts. On the other hand, the computational time
of the RNN-PCC algorithm is slightly increased, needing
36.5 μs to be executed. This is due to the additional calculation
imposed by the RNN identifier. Indeed, such slight increase in
computational time is quite acceptable considering the
significant contribution offered by the proposed RNN-PCC.
Further comparisons between the two algorithms in terms of
control complexity and required parameters are shown in
Table III. In comparison to the conventional MB-PCC, which
requires precise SynRM parameters that vary with the
operating point, the proposed RNN-PCC requires few constant
parameters that allow the best possible performance,
independently of the motor operating conditions. It is
important to emphasize that the proposed model-free RNN-
PCC requires less parameters than the ultra-local model based
model-free predictive control proposed in [27].
TABLE II EXECUTION TIME
MB-PCC RNN-PCC
Acquisition and PI controller 5.8 µs 5.8 µs
SynRM EKF 0 µs 4.1 µs
Prediction and evaluation 14.4 µs 19.7 µs
Other processes 6.9 µs 6.9 µs
Totally 27.1 µs 36.5 µs
TABLE III CONTROL PARAMETERS
MB-PCC RNN-PCC
Motor parameters needed Rs, Ld, Lq and so on Null
Parameters to be tuned Null Qi, Ri, ϖd and ϖq
B. Control performance:
For a fair comparison, both MB-PCC and RNN-PCC
schemes have been tuned in order to give the best possible
performance, and they are tested under the same conditions. In
order to evaluate their performance, the total harmonic
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Fig. 4 Simulation results under speed and load variations: (a)
conventional MB-PCC with nominal parameters; (b) conventional MB-
PCC under the influence of parameter variations (0.5xLd and 0.5xLq);
(c) proposed RNN-PCC.
0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Fig. 5 Experimental results for 800 rpm and 14 N.m: (a) conventional
MB-PCC with nominal parameters; (b) conventional MB-PCC under the
influence of parameter variations (0.5xLd and 0.5xLq); (c) proposed
RNN-PCC.
distortion (THD) and the total waveform oscillation (TWO)
are employed, defined as:
THDa2  THDb2  THDc2
THD  100% (20)
3
2 2
YeRMS  YeDC
TWO  100% (21)
YeDC
where YeRMS and Yedc denote the RMS and the average values
of a given quantity.
Fig. 4 presents the simulation results of the conventional
MB-PCC and the proposed model-free RNN-PCC considering
the same operating conditions. Firstly, the reference speed is
set to 1000 rpm under a load torque of 7 N.m. Then, at the
instant t = 0.5 s, the reference speed increases to its rated
value, whereas at the instant t = 1 s the load torque steps to its
rated value. The performance of the MB-PCC with nominal
parameters is illustrated in Fig. 4 (a), where the first and
second figures show the actual and zoomed SynRM currents,
respectively, the third figure illustrates the dq-axes currents
and their references, and the last figure presents the rotor speed
together with its reference value. Analyzing the results, it is
clearly observed that even with the nominal parameters of the
MB-PCC, an obvious deviation is aroused in the q-axis current
compared to its reference, which increases as the speed and
load torque increase. Because the MB-PCC is sensitive to
parameter variations, the tracking q-axis current error increases
even more under inductances variations, where the dq-axes
inductances values are set lower than their nominal values (see
Fig. 4 (b)). As a result, high current ripples and harmonic
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Fig. 6 Experimental results under 1100 rpm and load torque variation: (a) conventional MB-PCC with nominal parameters; (b) conventional MB-
PCC under the influence of parameter variations (0.5xLd and 0.5xLq); (c) proposed RNN-PCC.

distortions are obtained, especially under inductances
variations. It is important to emphasize that the inductances
variation is performed by changing their values in the MB-
PCC algorithm. On the contrary, since the proposed RNN-
PCC does not require the knowledge of the motor parameters,
the tracking error of q-axis current is eliminated, showing an
inherent immunity against the SynRM parameter variations.
Thus, although both control schemes can achieve a fast
dynamic response and provide a similar rotor speed
performance, the considered RNN-PCC performs better in
harmonic distortion. From the considered control strategies, it
can be concluded that the MB-PCC with inductance variations
has the lowest performance by presenting the highest THD
and TWO values, while the proposed RNN-PCC shows the
best performance under all the considered operating
conditions.
Fig. 5 shows the experimental results of both control
schemes, considering a reference speed of 800 rpm with the
rated load torque. Comparing with the equivalent simulation
waveforms shown in Fig. 4, it can be observed an excellent
agreement between the simulation results and the
corresponding experimental ones. Fig. 5 (a) shows that despite
the nominal parameters are used in the conventional MB-PCC,
they are still not well matched with their SynRM accurate
parameters. It can be observed an evident deviation of the q-
axis current from its reference value. This is more noticeable
when inductance variations exist, since the deviation of the q-
axis current increase even more, as shown in Fig. 5 (b).
Consequently, the dq-axes currents ripples and errors increase,
resulting in a significant harmonic distortion and degraded
sinusoidal waveforms of the SynRM currents. This is because
the MB-PCC is highly dependent on accurate parameters that
change considerably in the SynRM according to the operating
point. However, as opposed to the MB-PCC, in the proposed
model-free RNN-PCC, the system parameters are abandoned,
avoiding the parameter variations effect. As a result, the RNN-
PCC has better steady-state performance and a close tracking
of the rotor speed reference, as shown in Fig. 5 (c). The dq-
axes currents smoothly follow their references with good
accuracy and low TWO values. Consequently, better quality
of the SynRM currents are achieved, with more sinusoidal
waveforms and less THD values. It can be seen that compared
with the proposed model-free RNN-PCC, the MB-PCC
supplies the SynRM with a little bit higher current values due
the parameter mismatches under high current and saturation
effects of the SynRM. Hence, it can be concluded the
importance of the proposed model-free RNN-PCC.
To better evaluate the transient-state performance, the speed
reference is set to 1100 rpm under load torque variations (see
Fig. 6). At the instant t = 0.5 s, an instantaneous load torque
variation from no-load to 5 N.m is applied. It can be observed
that both MB-PCC and RNN-PCC schemes can achieve an
excellent dynamic response and that the rotor speed tracks its
reference with high accuracy after a slight descent due to the
applied load torque. However, as previously mentioned, the q-
axis current cannot track accurately its reference value in the
conventional MB-PCC, as depicted in Fig. 6 (a), and it
presents an evident offset when inductance variations exist
under a high load torque (see Fig. 6 (b)). However, using the
proposed RNN-PCC, the dq-axes currents track their
references with good stability and accuracy, showing this way
the proposed control robustness against strong and fast load
torque variations.
The proposed RNN-PCC is further compared with the
conventional MB-PCC as shown in Fig. 7, by considering a
speed variation under a constant load torque of 2 N.m. At the

0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Fig. 7 Experimental results under 2 N.m and speed variation: (a)
conventional MB-PCC with nominal parameters; (b) conventional MB-
PCC under the influence of parameter variations (0.5xLd and 0.5xLq);
(c) proposed RNN-PCC.
instant t = 0.5 s, the reference speed is changed from 500 rpm
to 1000 rpm with an acceleration rate of 1000 rpm/s. Once
again, due to the inductances variations in the conventional
MB-PCC, ripples and deviations from the reference can be
observed in Figs. 7 (a) and (b), especially at high-speed
0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
values. However, the SynRM parameters are avoided by using
the proposed RNN-PCC, and therefore, the speed and the dq-
axes currents are smoothly tracking their new references with
no significant overshoot, ensuring low harmonic distortion of
the three-phase currents, as shown in Figs. 7 (c).
Consequently, compared with the MB-PCC, better steady- and
transient-state performance are achieved using the proposed
RNN-PCC.
From the obtained results it is clear the superiority of the
proposed model-free RNN-PCC that outperforms the classical
MB-PCC for all the considered operating conditions. This is
more evident for high current levels, under the magnetic
saturation effect of the SynRM.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper proposes a new model-free predictive current
control based on real-time currents estimation using a
recurrent neural network. The proposed control scheme has
two main processes: (i) the recurrent neural network generates
the dq-axes current predictions which compensate the model-
based expressions, and (ii) the error between the reference and
predicted currents is evaluated by the cost function, being
therefore used in order to provide the respective switching
vector. The proposed algorithm does not require the
knowledge of the motor parameters, avoiding therefore the
influence of parameter variations.
The proposed model-free RNN-PCC is compared to the
conventional MB-PCC. The simulation and experimental
results show that both control schemes have excellent dynamic
performance. However, as opposed to the MB-PCC which is
susceptible to suffer from parameter variations, the proposed
RNN-PCC is not affected by the motor parameters and can
achieve better steady-state performance. The results confirm
the effectiveness of the proposed model-free RNN-PCC by
presenting the best overall performance in terms of current
ripples and tracking error under various operating conditions.
From the presented results it can be concluded that the
proposed RNN-PCC is a very good alternative to the
conventional MB-PCC.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Fratta and A. Vagati, “A reluctance motor drive for high dynamic
performances applications”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.
873-879, Jul./Aug. 1992.
[2] T. Matsuo and T. A. Lipo, “Rotor design optimization of synchronous
reluctance machines”, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
359-365, Jun. 1994.
[3] D. M. B Matos, J. O Estima, K. Yahia and A. J. M. Cardoso, “Modeling
and implementation of MTPA control strategy for SynRM variable speed
drives”, Int. Rev. Electrical Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 1103-1110,
Nov./Dec. 2014.
[4] S. Vazquez, J. Rodriguez, M. Rivera, L. G. Franquelo and
M.Norambuena, “Model predictive control for power converters and
drives: advances and trends”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., Vol. 64, No.2,
pp. 935-947, 2017.
[5] S. Kouro, P. Cortes, R. Vargas, U. Ammann, and J. Rodriguez, “Model
predictive control—a simple and powerful method to control power
converters”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1826–1838,
Jun. 2009.
[6] I. Jlassi and A. J. Marques Cardoso, “Enhanced and computationally
efficient model predictive flux and power control of PMSG drives for
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
wind turbine applications”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 68, no. 8,
pp. 6574-6583, Aug. 2021.
[7] I. Jlassi and A. J. Marques Cardoso, “Open-circuit fault-tolerant
operation of permanent magnet synchronous generator drives for wind
turbine systems using a computationally efficient model predictive
current control”, IET Electr. Power Appl. vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 837-846, Jul.
2021.
[8] I. Jlassi and A. J. Marques Cardoso, “Lookup-table-based model
predictive torque control without weighting factors for PMSM
drives”, IECON 2019 - 45th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society, Lisbon, Portugal, 2019, pp. 1165-1170.
[9] B. Gmati, I. Jlassi, S. Khojet El Khil, and A. J. Marques Cardoso,
“Open-switch fault diagnosis in voltage source inverters of PMSM
drives using predictive current errors and fuzzy logic approach,” IET
Power Electron., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1059–1072, 2021.
[10] T. Lubin, H. Razik and A. Rezzoug, “Magnetic saturation effects on the
control of a synchronous reluctance machine”, IEEE Trans. Energy
Conv., Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 356362, 2002.
[11] I. Jlassi and A. J. Marques Cardoso, “Model predictive current control of
synchronous reluctance motors, including saturation and iron losses
”, 2018 XIII International Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM),
Alexandroupoli, 2018, pp. 1598-1603.
[12] C. Mademlis, “Compensation of magnetic saturation in maximum torque
to current vector controlled synchronous reluctance motor drives”, IEEE
Trans. Energy Conv., Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 379-385, 2003.
[13] R. Morales-Caporal and M. Pacas, “A predictive torque control for the
synchronous reluctance machine taking into account the magnetic cross
saturation”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., Vol. 54, No. 2, pp.
1161–1167, Apr. 2007.
[14] R. Morales-Caporal and M. Pacas, “Suppression of saturation effects in a
sensorless predictive controlled synchronous reluctance machine based
on voltage space phasor injections”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58,
no. 7, pp. 2809-2817, July 2011.
[15] R. Morales-Caporal and M. Pacas, “Encoderless predictive direct torque
control for synchronous reluctance machines at very low and zero
speed”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4408-4416, Dec.
2008.
[16] H. Hadla and S. Cruz, “Predictive stator flux and load angle control of
synchronous reluctance motor drives operating in a wide speed range,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., Vol. 64, No. 9, pp. 6950-6959, Sep. 2017.
[17] S. A. Odhano, P. Pescetto, H. A. A. Awan, M. Hinkkanen, G. Pellegrino
and R. Bojoi, "Parameter Identification and Self-Commissioning in AC
Motor Drives: A Technology Status Review," IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 3603-3614, April 2019.
[18] M. Hinkkanen, P. Pescetto, E. Mölsä, S. E. Saarakkala, G. Pellegrino and
R. Bojoi, "Sensorless Self-Commissioning of Synchronous Reluctance
Motors at Standstill Without Rotor Locking," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 2120-2129, May-June 2017,
[19] S. Odhano, P. Giangrande, R. Bojoi, and C. Gerada, “Self
commissioning of Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor
Drives With High-Frequency Current Injection,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. PP, no. 99, p. 1, 2014.
[20] C. Lin, T. Liu, J. Yu, L. Fu, and C. Hsiao, “Model-free predictive current
control for interior permanent-magnet synchronous motor drives based
on current difference detection technique”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 667–681, Feb. 2014.
[21] C. Lin, J. Yu, Y. Lai, and H. Yu, “Improved model-free predictive
current control for synchronous reluctance motor drives”, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 3942–3953, Jun. 2016.
[22] D. Da Rú, M. Polato, and S. Bolognani, “Model-free predictive current
control for a SynRM drive based on an effective update of measured
current responses”, in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Predictive Control Electr.
Drives Power Electron., Sep. 2017, pp. 119–124.
[23] P. G. Carlet, F. Tinazzi, S. Bolognani, and M. Zigliotto, “An effective
model-free predictive current control for synchronous reluctance motor
drives”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 3781–3790, Jul./Aug.
2019.
[24] C. Ma, H. Li, X. Yao, Z. Zhang and F. De Belie, “An improved model-
free predictive current control with advanced current gradient updating
mechanism”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2020 (Early access).
[25] Y. Zhou, H. Li, and H. Yao, “Model-free control of surface mounted
PMSM drive system”, in 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Technology (ICIT), March 2016, pp. 175–180.
0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
[26] Y. Zhang, J. Jin and L. Huang, “Model-free predictive current control of
PMSM drives based on extended state observer using ultra local model”,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 993-1003, Feb. 2021.
[27] Y. Zhang, T. Jiang and J. Jiao, “Model-free predictive current control of
a DFIG Using an ultra-local model for grid synchronization and power
regulation”, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 2269-2280,
Dec. 2020.
[28] Y. Zhang, T. Jiang and J. Jiao, “Model-free predictive current control of
DFIG based on an extended state observer under unbalanced and
distorted grid”, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 8130-
8139, Aug. 2020.
[29] I. S. Mohamed, S. Rovetta, T. D. Do, T. Dragicević and A. A. Z. Diab,
“A neural-network-based model predictive control of three-phase
inverter with an output LC filter”, IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 124737-
124749, 2019.
[30] M. T. Wishart and R. G. Harley, “Identification and control of induction
machines using artificial neural networks”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol.
31, no. 3, pp. 612–619, 1995.
[31] S. M. Gadoue, D. Giaouris, and J. W. Finch, “Stator current model
reference adaptive systems speed estimator for regenerating-mode low
speed operation of sensorless induction motor drives”, IET Electr. Power
Appl., vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 597–606, 2013.
[32] M. P. Akter, S. Mekhilef, N. M. L. Tan, and H. Akagi, “Modified model
predictive control of a bidirectional AC–DC converter based on
lyapunov function for energy storage systems”, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 704–715, 2016.
[33] X. Fu and S. Li, “A Novel Neural Network Vector Control Technique
for Induction Motor Drive”, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol. 30, no. 4,
pp. 1428-1437, 2015.
[34] H. Mesai-ahmed, A. Bentaallah, A.J.M. Cardoso, Y. Djeriri and I. Jlassi ,
“Robust neural control of the dual star induction generator used in a
grid-connected wind energy conversion system,” Mathematical
Modelling of Engineering Problems, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 323-332, 2021.
[35] S. Saadatmand, P. Shamsi and M. Ferdowsi, "Power and Frequency
Regulation of Synchronverters Using a Model Free Neural Network-
Based Predictive Controller," IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 68, no. 5,
pp. 3662-3671, May 2021.
[36] A. Y. Alanis, E. N. Sanchez and A. G. Loukianov, “Discrete-time
adaptive backstepping nonlinear control via high-order neural networks”,
IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1185-1195, July 2007.
[37] P. Cortes, J. Rodriguez, C. Silva and A. Flores, “Delay compensation in
model predictive current control of a three-phase inverter”, IEEE Trans.
on Ind. Electron.,, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 1323-1325, Feb. 2012.
[38] R. Ruiz-Cruz, E. Sanchez, A. Loukianov and J. Ruz-Hernandez, “Real-
time neural inverse optimal control for a wind generator”, IEEE Trans.
Sustainable Energy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1172-1183, 2019.
[39] S. Ge, J. Zhang and T. Lee, “Adaptive neural network control for a class
of MIMO nonlinear systems with disturbances in discrete-time”, IEEE
Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1630-1645,
2004.
[40] L. Djilali, E. Sanchez and M. Belkheiri, “Real-time neural sliding mode
field oriented control for a DFIG-based wind turbine under balanced and
unbalanced grid conditions”, IET Renew. Power Gener., vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 618-632, 2019.
[41] E. Sanchez, A. Alanís and A. Loukianov, Discrete-Time High Order
Neural Control, 1st ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2008.
Hamza Mesai Ahmed was born in Eloued,
Algeria, in 1994. He received the BSc and
MSc degrees in Electrical Engineering from
the University of Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria, in
2015 and 2017, respectively. He is currently
working toward the Ph.D. degree in electrical
control at the Department of Electrical
Engineering, University of Sidi Bel Abbes. He
is a Researcher member in ICEPS—
Intelligent Control Electrical Power System Laboratory, Sidi Bel Abbes,
Algeria and also in CISE - Electromechatronic Systems Research
Centre, Covilhã, Portugal (http://cise.ubi.pt). From 2018 to 2019, he
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2021.3120480, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

was an Invited Professor with the Department of Electrical

Engineering, University of Eloued, Algeria. His main research interests Abderrahim Bentaallah Was born in sidi bel
are focused on renewable energies, multiphase machines, fault abbes, Algeria, in 1965. He is received his BS
diagnosis, model predictive and artificial intelligence control of power degree in Electrical engineering from Sidi Bel
electronics. Abbes University, Algeria, in 1991 , the MS
degree from the same University in 2005 and
Imed Jlassi was born in Tunis, Tunisia, in the PhD degree from the Electrical Engineering
1984. He received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. Institute of University of Sidi Bel Abbes,
degrees in electrical engineering from Algeria, in 2009. He is currently Professor of
Laboratoire des Systèmes Electriques, Ecole electrical engineering in this University. He is a
Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, in 2011 and member of ICEPS— Intelligent Control Electrical Power System
2016 respectively. From 2011 to 2016, he was Laboratory, Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria. His resesrch interests are related
an Assistant Professor with the Department of to non linear control and observers applied in induction motor.
Electrical Engineering, Ecole Nationale
d'Ingénieurs de Carthage, Tunisia. In January
2014, he joined CISE - Electromechatronic Systems Research Centre
(http://www.cise.ubi.pt), University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal,
where he has been a Postdoctoral Researcher since 2016. His
research interests include digital control of AC motors and wind
turbines, fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant systems.
He currently serves as Co-Guest Editor of the MDPI journal Machines
Special Issue on Machines Predictive Control. He was considered one
of the Outstanding Reviewers of the IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics for the year 2019.

Antonio J. Marques Cardoso received the

Dipl. Eng., Dr. Eng., and Habilitation degrees
from the University of Coimbra, Coimbra,
Portugal, in 1985, 1995 and 2008, respectively,
all in Electrical Engineering.
From 1985 until 2011, he was with the
University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, where
he was Director of the Electrical Machines
Laboratory. Since 2011, he has been with the
University of Beira Interior (UBI), Covilhã, Portugal, where he is Full
Professor at the Department of Electromechanical Engineering and
Director of CISE - Electromechatronic Systems Research Centre
(http://cise.ubi.pt). He was Vice-Rector of UBI (2013-2014). His current
research interests are in fault diagnosis and fault tolerance of electrical
machines, power electronics and drives. He is the author of a book
entitled Fault Diagnosis in Three-Phase Induction Motors (Coimbra,
Portugal: Coimbra Editora, 1991, in Portuguese), editor of a book
entitled Diagnosis and Fault Tolerance of Electrical Machines, Power
Electronics and Drives (IET/SciTech, UK, 2018), and also author of
around 500 papers published in technical journals and conference
proceedings.
Prof. Marques Cardoso currently serves as Editor-in-Chief of the MDPI
journal Machines, and Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, IEEE Journal of Emerging
and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, IEEE Open Journal of the
Industrial Electronics Society, as well of the Springer International
Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management.

0278-0046 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
View publication stats