ISA Transactions

Hysteresis based Predictive Torque Control without Weighting Factors for Induction
Motor Drives
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: ISATRANS-D-22-01620R1

Article Type: Research article

Section/Category: Application

Keywords: Model Predictive Torque Control (MTPC); Cost Function; Weighting Factor;
Hysteresis controller; Direct Torque Control; induction motor

Corresponding Author: Muhmmad Bilal Shahid

Southwest Jiaotong University
CHINA

First Author: Muhmmad Bilal Shahid

Order of Authors: Muhmmad Bilal Shahid

Weidong Jin, PhD

Muhammad Abbas Abbasi, PhD

Abdul Rashid Husain, PhD

Mannan Hassan

Abstract: This work proposes a weighting-factor-free finite control set predictive torque control
(FCS-PTC) for induction motor drives by incorporating hysteresis controller to eliminate
stator flux error from the cost function. The tuning of weighting factor coefficient in
FCS-PTC is critical for improved drive performance. Conventionally, the tuning is
based on intuitive understanding of dynamical system and empirical methods which
may not yield optimal results. The proposed method regulates the flux by incorporating
a separate two level hysteresis controller and torque by the conventional cost function
based PTC. The cost function uses torque error only and employs reduced number of
voltage vectors. The reduction of voltage vectors is obtained through the flux hysteresis
output and sector determination. The proposed work is implemented experimentally on
dSpace DS1104 controller board for two level three phase voltage source inverter fed
induction motor drive. The experimental results validate the effectiveness of the
proposed work under different drive tests with comparison to conventional PTC and
direct torque control (DTC). The obtained results show comparable dynamic
performance of the drive with 43% lower computational burden as compared to
conventional PTC. Along with computational benefit, proposed work also demonstrates
improved total harmonic distortion (THD) at low speed region due to the absence of
weighting factor in cost function.

Suggested Reviewers: Saurave Raj, PhD

Dr., Institute of Chemical Technology Marathwada Campus Jalna
sauravsonvsahu@gmail.com
Expert in electrical engineering

Bishwajit Dey, PhD

Dr., Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology
bishwajit.16dr000180@ee.ism.ac.in

Munsif Ali Jatoi, PhD

Professor, Salim Habib University
Jatoi.neuroscientistt@gmail.com

Muhammad Sohail Sheikh, PhD

Professor, Yanshan University
Sohail.sheikh@stumail.ysu.edu.cn

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Cover Letter

Dear,
Associate Editor,
ISA Transactions, 15 Feburary 2023

Resubmission of Manuscript Entitled: Hysteresis based Predictive Torque Control without

Weighting Factors for Induction Motor Drives

Manuscript ID: ISATRANS-D-22-01620

Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the
reviewers’ comments.

We are uploading our point-by-point response to the comments (response to reviewers) and an
updated manuscript. We do hope that we can have the same reviewers for the manuscript so that
the contents with the improvement can be noticed.
We would like to re-iterate that in this article we have proposed Hysteresis based Predictive
Torque Control without Weighting Factors for Induction Motor Drives where it will result in
improved THD, flux ripple and computational cost of the algorithm. In proposed work weighting
factor is removed by incorporating hysteresis controller and cost function is formed by torque
error only. The cost function is optimized on the basis of reduced voltage vectors which results in
lower computational burden. This work is compared with different model predictive torque
control techniques with reference to computational performance.
We hope that the revised manuscript meets the requirements of your esteemed journal.

Thank you very much for your time and we hope it will receive your favourable consideration for
this manuscript to be reviewed, improved and published in your reputable journal.

Yours sincerely,

Muhammad Bilal Shahid

School of Electrical Engineering,
Southwest Jiao Tong University, Chengdu, Sichuan
China.
Title page showing Author Details

Hysteresis based Predictive Torque Control without Weighting

Factors for Induction Motor Drives
Name of Authors:

Muhammad Bilal Shahid1;3, *, Weidong Jin1;2,*, Muhammad Abbas Abbasi3, Abdul Rashid Husain4, Mannan Hassan1

Affiliation:
1
School of Electrical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University (SWJTU), Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, China,
2
China-ASEAN International Joint Laboratory of Integrated Transportation, Nanning University, Nanning , China,
3
Department of Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan,
4
School of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia,

*Correspondence Author Email: bilal.shahid@iub.edu.pk , wdjin@home.swjtu.edu.cn

Detailed Response to Reviewers

Ref. No: ISATRANS-D-22-01620

Title: Hysteresis based Predictive Torque Control without Weighting

Factors for Induction Motor Drives

Dear Associate Editor,

We would like to thank you for considering our manuscript for
publication in your esteemed journal. We also thank to reviewers
for their valuable suggestions.
Reviewer 1
1. No comparison in terms of the computational burden is exist, provides the number of
performed commutations for the tested schemes. I am worry that using multiple
voltages inside the one sampling interval may affect obviously the computation
capacity. You should provide it.

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The authors have added the
comparison of computational burdens of various PTC methods including Fuzzy
Decision Making (FDM) PTC, Multi-Objective Ranking (MOR) PTC and
Conventional PTC in Table 5 of the revised manuscript. The discussion of the table is
also highlighted under section 5.3. It is also emphasized that these schemes along with
the proposed scheme (H-PTC) use only one voltage vector inside any sampling
interval which is selected by the conventional cost function. The computational
burden is computed as the average time taken for the performance of a particular task.
Many published works such as [64] use this method for the comparison of
computational cost of a particular method.

2. The results of Figure 12 are against your claims that the proposed predictive method
provides better performance than the DTC and PTC. I feel convolution.

Thank you very much for the valued comment. The authors would like to emphasize
that the they have not claimed a better performance in terms of THD, torque ripple or
flux ripple (please refer to last sentence of abstract). Instead, authors claimed a
comparable performance with added advantage of weighting-factor-free formulation
and lower computational burden. The focus of this work is solely on removal of
weighting factor with a slight compromise on performance. Weighting factor removal
provides benefits at different operating points of the drive. Please see Figure 15 and
Table 5 for further explanation.

3. Provides the current spectrum analysis for the all tested techniques, not providing
only the THD as a percentage.
The authors would like to appreciate reviewer’s excellent suggestion for the
improvement of the manuscript. The current spectra have been added in revised
 manuscript in Figure 14 along with the explanation in the last paragraph under section
5.3.

4. As I claim that using different voltages will affect the calculating time and
accordingly the response time, In Fig. 9, the flux and speed responses of the proposed
method are slower than their relevant for the DTC and classic PTC, and this is a
challenging point.
The authors would like to appreciate the observation of the respected reviewer. As
explained in the response to point 2 above, we would like to add that the main
contribution of this work is to remove weighting factor from the conventional PTC
due to challenges associated with it. Again, it is emphasized that only a single optimal
voltage vector has been used during any given sampling interval. The slight
deterioration in performance is highlighted in the manuscript along with the benefits
obtained. The slower speed response, as pointed out by the honorable reviewer, is due
to PI controller (Note the outer speed loop in all the methods is regulated by PI
controllers). However, due to coupling effect between the outer and inner loop may
cause a slower transient response in flux and speed. This point may constitute the
ideal scenario for a future study of this newly proposed method. Currently, authors
have only focused on the formulation of the H-PTC and removal of weighting factor.

Reviewer 2
1. What are other types of methods for PTC? From the literature survey, list then and
make a summary table in the introduction and then highlight limitations/others that
have motivated to propose such a scheme.
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comment. According to your
suggestion a literature survey related to weighting factor methods in PTC has been
added in the Table 1. It can be observed from the table that weighting factor selection
is still a challenging task therefore a weighting factor removal method has been
proposed in this work. This method also provides reduction in computational burden
as compared with conventional PTC in comparable performance. Moreover, the
motivation for the proposed method is also emphasized in the preceding paragraph to
Table 1.
2. Can you describe before the conclusion, what added things you have done than [4],
[14] and https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-epa.2018.5983?
Thank you very much for your suggestion. It is important to highlight that work
presented in [4] and [14] is related to online weighting factor calculation and not to its
removal. Moreover, the third reference (https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-epa.2018.5983)
suggested by the honorable reviewer is not related to PTC or weighting factor (A
DTC method for 6-phase IM with 5 level torque comparator). The authors feel that
the differences among these works have already been highlighted in the
“Introduction” section. Since these works address different research questions,
therefore, the reference to these works have been added accordingly.

3. Provide a comparison of your result with other methods

Thank you very much for your feedback on the comparison of H-PTC with other PTC
methods. Although the proposed method has already been compared with
conventional PTC and DTC, keeping in view the valuable suggestion by the reviewer,
the authors have also added further comparison in terms of computational burden with
 two other weighting factor removal techniques namely Fuzzy Decision Making PTC
(FDM-PTC) and Multi-Objective Ranking PTC (MOR-PTC). This comparison is
presented in Table 5 of the modified manuscript along with accompanied paragraphs
under section 5.3 “Steady State Response”.

4. Are figure 14 radar diagrams? Give details about them: how many points, whether
there are any units, what does distance from the center signifies, etc.
Thank you very much for the inquiry. The authors would like to emphasize that these
are polar plots to represent flux magnitude under variable speed. The details about the
diagram have been added in the relevant section i.e. section 5.4. Please note that this
figure is now Figure 16 in revised manuscript.

5. Prove detailed description of your controller boards

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comment to improve the
manuscript. The description of the controller board was provided in the paragraph
under section 5 in original manuscript. However, the authors have rewritten this
paragraph to add more information about the controller board in revised manuscript.
Please refer to paragraph under section 5 “Experimental Results”.

6. Can you add mathematics behind your flux calculation?

The authors would like to point out that flux calculation (or estimation) in the
proposed work is based on a well-known basic technique called current model (CM)
estimation and has been adapted from [3]. The appropriate references have also been
added where required. The calculation has not been reproduced in the manuscript to
keep it simple and focused.

7. What assumptions/boundary conditions must be obeyed to apply this method?

Thank you very much for this important point. The limitations and assumptions
regarding hardware, estimation, prediction and optimization have already been
highlighted in the manuscript. The assumptions on the width of the hysteresis band,
speed range of operation, reference flux and speed loop controller are also given
where appropriate.

Reviewer 3

1. The block diagram in Fig.4 and the model equations (1) -(10) do not match.
Thank you very much for the feedback. Authors would like to elaborate that equations
(1) to (10) represent the dynamical model of the induction motor whereas, Figure 4
represents the block diagram of the proposed method. These equations are used in
different implementation stages of the proposed PTC such as estimation, prediction
and optimization of cost function. Please refer to equations (11) to (26) under sections
3 and 4 i.e. conventional PTC and H-PTC and accompanied discussion. To clear the
confusion, authors have modified the block diagram in Fig. 4 and have added relevant
equation numbers.

2. How the PI controller in Fig 4 in the speed loop is tuned?

 Thank you very much for your query. The PI controller tuning is based on the
conventional steady state transfer function model of the motor and is obtained through
Matlab’s PID tool. It is also important to emphasize here that most of the published
works on PTC do not include the process of PI tuning in the manuscripts as the main
concern in such works is the formulation of the inner torque loop. The authors would
like to refer to the following works to support their argument: [3], [17], [22].

3. Fig.5 is also not correct/clear as: torque prediction", "cost function minimization" and
change of i=1 , i=3 is not exactly clear.
Authors would like to thank the honorable reviewer for the valuable comment to
improve the manuscript. Fig. 5 has now been updated in manuscript to address the
concern of the reviewer. Some of the unnecessary blocks have been removed/merged
and equation numbers for each step have been inserted to make it clearer.

4. Table 3, motor parameters: sampling time, nominal weighting factor etc. should be
explained and the required parameters e.g. power, voltage, frequency is not
mentioned. Is it a standard motor which operates at 120 rad/sec nominal speed?
The authors are greatly thankful to the reviewer for this valuable remark. Table 3 now
has been modified to add missing information. Sampling times for both the outer
speed loop and inner PTC loop have been included in the table. The sampling times
define the time interval between two consecutive calculations and is an important
parameter for the DS1104 board. Nominal weighting factor is defined by equation
(17) and is also explained in section 3 “Conventional Predictive Torque Control”.
The required parameters e.g. power, DC link voltage and electrical frequency have
now been inserted in table 3.
It is a standard lab motor which operates at 400V and 50 Hz supply and has 4 poles (2
pole pairs). However, for the safety reasons, the motor is operated at 315 V DC link
supply which roughly corresponds to 𝑉𝑟𝑚𝑠 ≈ 𝑉𝐷𝐶 × 0.72 ≈ 227 𝑉. Similarly, to keep
the nominal flux at the rated value, electrical frequency is reduced proportionally to
227
voltage. The new electrical frequency corresponds to 𝜔𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 ≈ 0.95 ≈ 239 𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠
which corresponds to a mechanical speed of 120 rad/s. The calculations are baed on
the following reference:

Zhang Y, Xia B, Yang H. A Novel Three-Vectors-Based Model Predictive Flux

Control of Induction Motor Drives. In: Power Electronics and Motion Control
Conference (IPEMC-ECCE Asia), 2016 IEEE 8th International; 2016.

Therefore, 120 rad/s is considered as base mechanical speed along with base DC
voltage of 315 V for all experimental results.

Please note that Table 3 is now Table 4 in the revised manuscript.

5. How stator and rotor fluxes are computed with only current and speed sensors?
Thank you for your inquiry. The flux estimation is based on standard current model
which is described in detail in [3]. The appropriate references are given before these
calculations. To keep the readers’ focus on the core material, these calculations have
been omitted from the manuscript which is a standard practice.
6. Fig.7, what is the relation between weight factor, frequency and THD? Which
frequency and how it is controlled if it is a hysteresis controller?
Thank you very much for your query. Fig. 7 represents the effects of different values
of weighting factors on the average switching frequency of the inverter and load
current total harmonic distortion (THD) in conventional PTC. Please note that no
analytical relationship currently exists between weighting factor and switching
frequency or THD [3]. The weighting factor is varied in discrete values as shown in
Fig. 7 and for each value the corresponding switching frequency and THD are noted.
For the second part of the query, it is important to note that Fig. 7 is for PTC only and
involves no hysteresis controller.

7. Fig.8 b is it taken at 20% of rated speed? The authors are requested to check the same.
Thank you very much for the valuable remark and correction. Fig. 8 b is for 20% of
the base speed and not rated speed. The base speed has already been explained in
point 4 above. The revised manuscript has been corrected accordingly.

8. Fig.10, the plots should be taken for low speed reversal for better demonstration.
Authors would like to thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The results of
the low speed reversal response have been added to the revised manuscript (Please
refer to Fig. 11 and accompanied discussion). The test is conducted at 20% of the base
speed (24 rad/s).
As per authors’ knowledge, very low speed operation in DTC/PTC is a challenging
task and constitutes an entirely separate field of research. In this work the main focus
has been kept on the weighting factor removal while achieving comparable
performance in PTC.

9. Fig.11 why the speed is reducing with sudden torque change? This performance is
unacceptable.
Thank you very much for your inquiry into this very important performance
indication. The speed in Fig. 11 (Fig. 12 in revised manuscript) is reducing due to the
loading effect. The speed is regulated by the PI controller which does not come with
disturbance rejection capability in this work and is a simple PI controller. Disturbance
rejection in electrical drives also constitutes a separate field of research and is not the
main focus of our research. The honorable reviewer can notice that speed is reducing
in all the compared method i.e. DTC, PTC and H-PTC due to the absence of
disturbance rejection mechanism.

10. Fig.12 the test conditions are improper for DTC. the torque ripple is also unacceptable
for proposed method.

The authors would like to extend their regards to the honorable reviewer for sparing
time to read the manuscript carefully and provide feedback for its improvement.
The torque ripples in Fig. 12 (Fig. 13 in revised manuscript) are larger due to the
deliberate setting of the hysteresis band gap for experimental purposes only. The
torque ripple can easily be brought down by adjusting the width of the hysteresis band
in both DTC and proposed PTC (Please see Fig. 18 in revised manuscript for the
effects of the width of hysteresis band on torque ripple). However, to make a fair
 comparison with conventional PTC in terms of computational time and other
performance parameters, band width is chosen higher.
The authors would like to refer to the following reference where average torque ripple
has been kept between 1.26 Nm to 1.4 Nm for different schemes of PTC and DTC:

Habibullah, M., Lu, D.D.C., Xiao, D. and Rahman, M.F., 2016. A simplified finite-
state predictive direct torque control for induction motor drive. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 63(6), pp.3964-3975.

11. For Fig.13, what about load test with same conditions?
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The load test with same condition
was conducted and the results have been added in Fig. 16 in revised manuscript. It is
important to highlight that same performance is observed in load test as was observed
in unloaded condition. Please see Fig. 16 and accompanied explanation under section
5.4.

12. Fig.15 should include PTC also.

The authors would like to point out that Fig. 15 presents the effects of the width of
two level flux hysteresis band on torque and flux of the motor. The hysteresis block is
only present in DTC and H-PTC and not a part of standard PTC implementation.
Therefore, PTC has been excluded from the results of Fig. 15.

13. The authors claim in Abstract Section, that "The obtained results .... drive with 43%
lower computational burden as compared to conventional PTC."-How? can it be
shown through proper derivations/calculations?
Thank you very much for your inquiry regarding computational burden calculations.
The authors would like to explain that DTC, PTC and H-PTC are cascaded control
schemes implemented in two loops: outer speed loop and inner torque loop. The
analytical/algebraic calculation of the computational burden for such complex
algorithms is currently not possible and has not been reported in any published work
according to the authors’ best knowledge. The average computational times were
calculated using dSpace DS-1104’s built-in routines RTLIB_TIC_START and
RTLIB_TIC_READ.

Reviewer 4

1. Highlights should be more concise and informative. From the highlight, it seems that
the contribution of the proposed controller is reducing the complexity, which may not
be very attractive.
Thank you very much for the excellent suggestion to improve the highlights of the
article. The authors have rewritten the highlights to make them concise and attractive.
It is also important to highlight here that the main purpose of the proposed PTC is to
remove the weighting factor from cost function. Reduced complexity naturally comes
as a by-product due to the presence of hysteresis controller.

2. In the abstract, what does THD stand for? Even though you have shown the full name
later, you need to show it in the beginning.
 Author would like to thank the reviewer for this valuable remark. The full name “total
harmonic distortion” (THD) has been added in the abstract of revised manuscript.

3. Section 3 and Figure 1 need more justification. PID controller is much faster the MPC
and thus usually is used for inner loop control. However, figure 1 shows that PID is
used as outer loop to provide reference. Then, it is better to show their sampling time.
I assume that the sampling time of PID is much longer than the MPC in this scheme.
Thank you very much for your feedback. Authors would like to point out that Fig. 1
represents the conventional PTC and has been adapted from [3]. PTC uses cascaded
control structure with two loops: the inner torque loop and outer speed loop. The outer
loop normally employs a traditional PI controller for generating torque reference for
inner loop and regulating the speed. The inner loop is relatively faster as compared to
outer loop so that it can follow the reference torque and ensure closed loop stability.

The reviewer is absolutely right that the sampling time of PI is much longer than PTC
in this scheme. The sampling times of both controllers are given in Table 4 i.e. 4 𝑚𝑠
for PI and 40 𝜇𝑠 for PTC.

4. As a typical limit of MPC, do authors consider the model uncertainty and its impact
on the proposed controller?
Author would like to thank the reviewer for this important query. Model mismatching
and model uncertainty are very important fields in predictive control schemes.
However, the main focus of the proposed method has been to overcome weighting
factor problem in PTC. Therefore, mismatching and uncertainties have not been
considered in the proposed method. However, it is an important future work
consideration.

Associate Editor

1. Adjust highlights to the Elsevier requirements: https://www.elsevier.com/authors/tools-

and-resources/highlights.
Thank you very much for this important point. The highlights have been revised to
meet the Elsevier requirements.

2. if subscripts/superscripts have a numerical value, use italics; otherwise, use the

regular font in the math mode, e.g., in Eq. (1), it should be $v_{\text{s}}$, not $v_s$,
etc. Thre are numerous such mistakes in the manuscript. Please correct the whole
manuscript, including the text, figures and tables.
Thank you very much for your comment. All the subscript/superscripts have been
updated in revised manuscript according to the valuable recommendation.

3. Eq. (11) and similar: \hat should be over the letter, not over the letter subscript.
Authors would like to thank you for your comment. The necessary changes have been
made in the revised manuscript.
4. Table 3: what is the "." operator (N.m.)? Multiplication?
Thank you very much for the query. The dot notation has been removed since N.m.
represents the unit of torque and not a multiplication. It is simply represented as “Nm”
in the revised manuscript.

5. It is strongly suggested to use the default color palette available in MATLAB:

https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/creating_plots/specify-plot-colors.html. Do
not use the old colors r, g, b, y, c, m, etc.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion to improve the figure quality. All
the figures have been updated according to the recommendation.

6. Please consider extending the conclusions.

Thank you very much for the feedback on conclusion. The authors have now extended
the conclusion in revised manuscript.
Highlights (for review)

Highlights
 Weighting factor a major challenge in predictive control of AC drives fed by two level
three phase voltage source inverter
 Weighting factor removal achieved by the elimination of flux error from PTC of
induction motor
 PTC cost function formed with only torque error and flux regulation obtained through
two level hysteresis controller
 Inverter voltage vectors reduced from 8 to 3 due to hysteresis controller
 A weighting-factor-free PTC formulation with reduced computational burden

.
Declaration of Interest Statement

Declaration of interests

☐ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which

may be considered as potential competing interests:

Declarations of interest: none

Revised Manuscript (Clean version)

Hysteresis based Predictive Torque Control without Weighting Factors

for Induction Motor Drives

Abstract

This work proposes a weighting-factor-free finite control set predictive torque control (FCS-PTC) for induction

motor drives by incorporating hysteresis controller to eliminate stator flux error from the cost function. The tuning

of weighting factor coefficient in FCS-PTC is critical for improved drive performance. Conventionally, the tuning

is based on intuitive understanding of dynamical system and empirical methods which may not yield optimal

results. The proposed method regulates the flux by incorporating a separate two level hysteresis controller and

torque by the conventional cost function based PTC. The cost function uses torque error only and employs reduced

number of voltage vectors. The reduction of voltage vectors is obtained through the flux hysteresis output and

sector determination. The proposed work is implemented experimentally on dSpace DS1104 controller board for

two level three phase voltage source inverter fed induction motor drive. The experimental results validate the

effectiveness of the proposed work under different drive tests with comparison to conventional PTC and direct

torque control (DTC). The obtained results show comparable dynamic performance of the drive with 43% lower

computational burden as compared to conventional PTC. Along with computational benefit, proposed work also

demonstrates improved total harmonic distortion (THD) at low speed region due to the absence of weighting

factor in cost function.

Keywords— Model Predictive Torque Control (MTPC), Cost Function, Weighting Factor, Hysteresis con-

troller, Direct torque control, Induction Motor

1 Introduction

Induction motor drives fed by 2-Level 3ϕ voltage source inverters (VSI) are very popular for industrial applications

due to numerous advantages including ruggedness, low maintenance and lower operational costs. For better drive

performance in such applications, field-oriented control (FOC) and direct torque control (DTC) are the methods of

choice. Recently, however, predictive torque control (PTC) has attracted wide attention of researchers due to its

1
advantages of optimization-based approach and effectiveness among others [1].

PTC, also known as finite control set model predictive torque control (FCS-MPTC), is a special type of a general

class of MPC and is used for both electrical drives and power electronic converter applications [2]. PTC employs a cost

function that normally consists of weighted sum of torque and stator flux errors, although other control objectives can

also be included in it. The errors are computed between reference and predicted values of the controlled variables.

The predictions are based on the linear model of the induction motor and switching states of VSI. The optimal

switching state or voltage vector is determined through the optimization of cost function under different predictions.

This implies the vital importance of cost function formulation in effective control of the drive. However, due to the

presence of dissimilar controlled variables in the cost function, it becomes challenging to set the relative importance

of control objectives through weighting factor assignment [3]. This has become the major problem in PTC and is

the prime focus of ongoing research [4–7].

Currently, there is no simple technique or analytical method for weighting factor adaptation. Some general guidelines

have been proposed in [3] for its selection in PTC. However, these guidelines do not apply to other formulations of

MPC. A survey of the recent literature reveals that there are two different approaches towards solving weighting

factor challenge (i) removal from the cost function (ii) online tuning [8]. Both methods have their own merits and

disadvantages. Online tuning normally requires expensive hardware with faster computational capabilities whereas

weighting factor removal method may deteriorate the overall control performance [9].

Some of the most important works on the online selection of weighting factor include multi-criteria decision making

(MCDM) algorithms [10–16], online adaptation based on current or torque ripples [17–19], genetic and simulated

annealing algorithms [20–23], and particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm [24–31]. However, most of the online

weighting factor tuning methods increase the complexity of the controllers and pose computational challenges for

their practical implementation and are only restricted to theoretical studies [32]. Therefor, weighting factor removal

techniques provide lower complexity and hence do not impose any computational burden on the controller.

Various Weighting factor removal techniques have been proposed in literature such as multi-objective optimization,

multi-objective ranking based algorithm [33–35], and fuzzy based multi-objective algorithms [36]. However these

optimization technique are computationally heavy and become complex by incorporating multiple control objectives.

A more recent method to remove weighting factor from PTC has been suggested in [31, 37–41] which is also called

reference transformation. In this technique, weighting factor is removed by converting torque into equivalent stator

flux or stator voltage vector. However, removal of torque error from the cost function increases the torque ripples

and deteriorates the performance of the system [30]. These techniques along with some other related methods for

weighting factor tuning or removal are summarized in Table. 1.

The table also highlights the limitations of the proposed techniques. In almost all of the weighting factor factor

removal methods, the computational burden increases proportionally due to the introduction of additional compu-

2
 Table 1: Summary of the PTC methods focused on weighting factor challenges

PTC Methods Limitations

Weighting factor removal by reference transfor- Higher computational burden as compared with conven-
mation [14, 31, 39, 40] tional PTC and difficult to incorporate multiple control
objectives [42–47]

Weighting factor tuning based on coefficient of Optimized weights are uncertain in this method and com-
variation [4] plex calculations are required to implement on hardware
[23, 43]

Weighting factor tuning based on TOPSIS and TOPSIS and NSGA-II algorithms require complex calcu-
NSGA-II methods [21, 48] lations leading to computational challenges [23, 49–51].

Weighting factor removal by Ranking method Ranking based techniques become unfeasible as number of
[15] control objectives increases [52]

Tuning of weighting factor based on simple ad- Although technique is simple but not suitable for multiple
ditive technique [16] control objectives [42, 53]

Weighting factor tuning based on current rip- Highly dependent on parameter estimation [23, 55]
ples [54]

Tuning of weighting factor based on error of This method becomes challenging and complex when num-
control objectives [12, 56] ber of control objectives increases [43, 57]

Weighting factor tuning using Genetic Algo- These algorithms are very complex and pose computa-
rithm (GA) [20], Simulated Annealing (SA) tional challenges [51, 56, 59, 60]
[23] or Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA)
[58]

tations involved in the process of removal. This motivated the authors to formulate a PTC method where weighting

factor is removed without any increase in computational burden and any compromise on the dynamic performance

of the controller. The idea of weighting factor removal is taken from direct torque control (DTC) algorithm where

hysteresis controllers are used for stator flux and torque regulation. A simple two level hysteresis controller is merged

in FCS-PTC to control the stator flux magnitude of the motor whereas cost function formulation involves only torque

error which effectively removes weighting factor. As compared to other removal methods, this technique does not

compromize on the flux regulation performance of the overall scheme. The flux plane is divided into six different

sectors on the pattern of DTC. On the basis of flux change and sector, three voltage vectors are chosen for the

prediction of torque errors in each sampling interval. This approach significantly reduces the computational burden

during the selection of optimized voltage vectors. The remaining structure of the paper is as follows: section II

provides the dynamic model of IM, then conventional PTC is presented in section-III. Section IV provides the details

of proposed method and results are presented in section-V. Finally, some comments on future possibilities for further

research are given in the concluding remarks.

3
2 Dynamic Model of IM

The dynamic model of IM in stationary reference frame can be described by the following equations [9, 61]

dψs
vs = Rs is + (1)
dt

dψr
0 = Rr ir + − jωψr (2)
dt

ψs = Ls is + Lm ir (3)

ψr = Lr ir + Lm is (4)

3 3
T = pIm{ψs is } = − pIm{ψr ir } (5)
2 2

where Lm , Ls and Lr are the mutual inductance, rotor and stator inductance; Rs and Rr are the stator and rotor

resistances; ψs and ψr are the stator and rotor flux vectors; vs , is and ir are stator voltage, stator and rotor current

vectors; T and p are electromagnetic torque and number of pole pairs. The mechanical equation of the motor can

be written as follows if frictional losses are ignored:

dωm
J = T − Tl (6)
dt

where J is the moment of inertia of the mechanical shaft and Tl is the load torque. The model can also be expressed

in the state space form by choosing stator current and rotor flux vectors as the state variables.

dis kr 1 vs is
= ( − jω)ψr + − (7)
dt τσ Rσ τr Rσ τσ τσ

dψ r ψr Lm
= (1 + jωτr ) + is (8)
dt τr τr
2
The constants are defined as, τr = kr/Rr , σ = 1 − Lm/Ls Lr , kr = Lm/Lr , Rσ = Rs + Rr kr2 and τσ = σLs/Rσ . Equation

(8) and (7) can be represented in standardized state space form as:

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bvs (9)

4
    
T T 1
where x(t) = is ψr and B = Rσ τσ 0 are the state vector and input matrix. Whereas state matrix A can
be defined as:  
1 kr 1
− τσ − jω)
τσ R σ ( τr
A=


 (10)
Lm 1
τr τr (1 + jωτ r )

The state space model can be discretized using Euler’s first order rule for estimation and prediction of flux and

electromagnetic torque.

3 Conventional Predictive Torque Control

The block diagram of conventional predictive torque control (PTC) for induction motor drives is shown in Figure 1. It

consists of two control loops namely outer speed control loop and inner torque/flux control loop. Speed loop normally

employs a simple PI controller that generates reference torque for the inner loop. Inner loop is responsible for flux

and torque regulation and consists of three main phases (i) the stator and rotor flux estimation, (ii) prediction of

stator flux and electromagnetic torque (iii) optimization of the cost function. Stator flux estimation can be achieved

Figure 1: Block diagram of conventional MPTC for 2L-3ϕ VSI fed induction motor

by applying Euler’s first order approximation formula to (1) [3, 40].

ψ̂s (k) = ψ̂s (k − 1) + Ts Vs (k) − Rs Ts is (k) (11)

Lr Lr Ls
ψ̂r (k) = ψ̂s (k) + is (k)(Lm − ) (12)
Lm Lm

5
The next step involves the prediction of the controlled variables under one-step-ahead scheme i.e. predictions for the

(k + 1) instant into the future.

ψ ps (k + 1) = ψ̂s (k) + Ts Vs (k) − Rs Ts is (k) (13)

The prediction of stator current can be obtained by discretizing (7):

Ts Ts 1 kr
is p (k + 1) = (1 + )is (k) + { [( − kr jω)ψ̂ r (k) + ss (k)]} (14)
τσ τσ + Ts Rσ τr

Once the stator current prediction has been obtained, then following equation can be used for torque prediction:

3 p
T p (k + 1) = pIm{ψ̄s (k + 1)is p (k + 1)} (15)
2

The T p (k + 1) and is p (k + 1) are predicted in terms of VSI voltage vs (k). Hence, (T p (k + 1))h and (is p (k + 1))h ,

h ∈ {0, 1....7} has seven different predicted values according to voltage vectors generated by VSI. Finally, the optimal

switching state selection is achieved by the minimization of the cost function that consists of a weighted sum of the

errors between reference and predicted values of the controlled variables. The voltage vector that produces minimum

value of the cost function is chosen and applied at the beginning of the next sampling interval. The cost function for

conventional PTC is expressed as:

Ch = |T ∗ − T p (k + 1)h | + wψ |ψ ∗ − ψsp (k + 1)h | (16)

The cost function consist of different variables therefore, weighting factor (wψ ) is used to adjust the relative impor-

tance of torque verses flux control. The nominal value of wψ is defined as:

Tn
wψ = (17)
ψs n

4 Hysteresis based Predictive Torque Control (H-PTC)

The proposed method removes the weighting factor from the conventional PTC by incorporating flux hysteresis

controller. The cost function is formulated on the basis of torque error only. This amalgamation of hysteresis

based flux regulation and optimization based torque control provides numerous advantages over both traditional

PTC and DTC, which include lower torque ripples and lower switching frequency. In the proposed method, the

outer speed control loop remains same as in conventional PTC for generating torque reference for the inner loop.

For the estimation of stator and rotor flux a simple current model is employed [3]. By applying Euler’s first order

6
 Figure 2: Two level flux hysteresis controller

approximations on (2), (3) and (4) and rearranging, following stator and rotor estimations can be obtained:

ψ̂ r (k + 1) = aTs is + [1 + Ts (jω − b)]ψr (k) (18)

where, a = Rr Lm/Lr and b = Rr/Lr .

ψ̂ s (k + 1) = cis + dψ̂r (k + 1) (19)

2
where, c = (Ls − Lm/Lr ) and d = Lm/Lr . Similar to the conventional DTC, the complex α-β flux plane is divided

into six sectors as shown in Figure 3. The division can also be represented by the following relationship:

π π
(2N − 3) ≤ θ(N ) ≤ (2N − 1) (20)
3 6

where θ is the range of the stator flux vector angle and N is the sector with N = 1, ...6. In conventional DTC,

selection of voltage vector is dependent on output of torque and flux hysteresis controllers. Normally, a two level

flux hysteresis controller and a three level torque hysteresis controller are used. The torque hysteresis controller may

cause problems such as (i) unwanted torque and flux ripples (ii) high switching frequency (iii) mechanical vibration

and acoustic noise in motor and (iv) poor performance in low speed region. To avoid these drawbacks, proposed

method combines the benefits of PTC by removing torque hysteresis with an optimization based selection of the

optimal voltage vector. Switching vector selection table for the conventional DTC is given in Table 2. In this table,

flux increase and decrease are represented by logic ”1” and ”0” as given in (21). The hysteresis band is shown in

Figure 2.

dF = 1 f or δψs > +HBF

(21)
dF = 0 f or δψs < −HBF

In proposed method, a modified switching table is introduced that generates three voltage vectors on the basis of

the output of the flux hysteresis controller and sector. The selected voltage vectors are termed as prediction voltage

7
 Table 2: Stator voltage vector lookup table for conventional DTC

δψs δT S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
1 V4 V5 V1 V3 V2 V6
1 0 V0 V7 V0 V7 V0 V7
−1 V2 V6 V4 V5 V1 V3
1 V5 V1 V3 V2 V6 V4
0 0 V7 V0 V7 V0 V7 V0
−1 V3 V2 V6 V4 V5 V1

Figure 3: Distribution of complex plan with six sectors

vectors and consist of two active vectors and one null vector. The selection of zero vector reduces the variation in

switching frequency as shown in Table 3. To demonstrate the selection of these vectors, an example is presented in

Figure 3. The figure shows that the current flux sector is 2 and flux vector is represented by the magnitude of ψˆs

and angle of θˆs . Suppose that the output of the flux hysteresis controller is 1 i.e. flux needs to be increased then

three voltage vectors on the right i.e. v6 , v1 and v2 will be the perfect choice for this purpose. However, these voltage

vectors will have different effects on the torque regulation. The torque change directly depends on the angle of the

flux, therefore, we need to include all possibilities of torque change. If torque needs to be increased, then v2 should be

selected. Similarly, if torque needs to be decreased, then v6 should be applied and if torque requires no change we can

apply a null vector. It is also evident from the diagram that v1 has no significant effect on angle change, therefore,

we can exclude it to further educe the computational burden. Similarly, when output of the hysteresis controller is 0

i.e. flux needs to be decreased then two vectors, V5 and V3 are selected as active vector because these two vector will

affect the electromagnetic torque as well. Based on this process, selection of active vectors in remaining sectors is

shown in Table 3. The selected voltage vectors are then used for the prediction and optimization of the cost function.

After the selection of three predicted voltage vectors vxyz where x, y, z ∈ v0 , v1 , ...v7 , stator flux, stator current and

8
 Table 3: Stator voltage vector lookup table for proposed PTC

Sector
δψs
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
1 V1 , V5 V2 , V6 V1 , V3 V2 , V4 V3 , V5 V2 , V6
0 V2 , V4 V5 , V3 V4 , V6 V1 , V5 V2 , V6 V1 , V3

Figure 4: Block diagram of proposed PTC for 2L-3ϕ VSI fed induction motor

torque are predicted with these three vectors by using following relationships.


p
 Ts Ts 1 kr
is (k + 1) = (1 + )is (k) + { [( − kr jω)ψ̂ r (k) + v vxyz (k)] } (22)
vxyz τσ τσ + Ts Rσ τr


ψsp (k

+ 1) = ψ̂ s (k) + Ts vxyz (k) − Rs Ts is (k) (23)
vxyz

2
T = pIm{ψ̄ s is } (24)
3

3 p
p
pIm{ψ̄s (k + 1)is p (k + 1)}

T (k + 1) = (25)
vxyz 2

Finally, cost function is formed by taking the difference of reference torque and predicted torque as given in (26).


= |T ∗ − T p (k + 1)vxyz |

C  (26)
vxyz

9
 Figure 5: Flow chart of proposed method

It is evident from the proposed cost function that only torque error is optimized using predicted voltage vectors

hence eliminating the need of using any weighting factor.

The complete block diagram of the proposed method hereby termed as H-PTC, is shown in Figure 4. The main

differences between PTC and H-PTC include (i) regulation of stator magnitude through flux hysteresis controller (ii)

reduction of prediction voltage vectors from eight to three by using the flux hysteresis output and sector information

and (iii) optimization of weighting-factor-free cost function consisting of torque error only. In the conventional PTC,

all voltage vectors n = {v0 ....v7 } of 2L3ϕ-VSI are applied for prediction and estimation as given in Table 2 [62–64].

However, in proposed work, only three voltage vectors are evaluated for estimation and prediction in which two

active and one zero vector {v0 } are selected. The implementation of H-PTC is also represented by the flow-chart in

Figure 5.

10
 Figure 6: Experimental setup for implementation of proposed work

5 Experimental Results

In order to investigate the performance and effectiveness of proposed method, a 2L-VSI fed induction motor drive

is used. The experimental setup is shown in Figure 6, which consists of Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IBGTs)

based VSI with DC voltage source along with dSpace DS1104 controller board. This board contains MPC8240

processor with PPC 603e core and 64-bit floating point processor. It has 250 MHz of clock frequency and is equipped

with multiple other functional blocks like, timers, interrupt controller, A/D converter, D/A converter, digital I/O

and serial interface. 2L-VSI drives the three phase induction motor that is attached with magnetic braking system

acting as an adjustable load. The speed and current measurement is achieved by incremental speed encoder. FPGA

board is used to generate blanking time for pulses applied to IGBTs. The controller and motor parameters are given

in Table 4.

11
 Table 4: Motor parameters

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Rated Torque, Tnom 10 N m. Stator Resistance, Rs 3Ω
Rated Stator Flux, ψs−nom 0.95 W b Rotor Resistance, Rr 4.1 Ω
Motor power, P 1.5 kW Rotor Inductance, Lr 351.3 mH
Base Speed, ωbase 120 rad/sec Stator Inductance, Ls 341.9 mH
Inverter DC source, Vdc 315 V Mutual Inductance, Lm 324 mH
Total number of pole pairs, p 2 Total Inertia, J 0.0087 Kg − m2
Nominal Weighting Factor, λnom 10.53 Total viscous friction, B 0.0042 N.m.s
Torque loop sampling time, Ts 40 µs Frequency, f 50 Hz
Speed loop sampling time, Ts 4 ms

5.1 Effects of Weighting Factor on PTC Performance

The weighting factor of PTC has profound effects on its performance. Figure 7 presents THD of stator current and

switching frequency waveform under steady state conditions with base speed (120 rad/s) and rated load (10 N m)

operation when different values of weighting factors are used. At low weighting factors, THD is very high whereas

switching frequency is low. As weighting factor is increased beyond the nominal value of 10.53, switching frequency

and THD become constant. Due to conflicting effects i.e. higher switching frequency and lower THD at the same

value of weighting factor, it is difficult to tune it. The weighting factor affects the performance differently at different

speeds. Figure 8 (a) and (b) present plots of motor torque, stator flux magnitude and phase a current at base speed

and 20% of base speed under varying weighting factors and at no-load condition. The effect of weighting factor is

more severe at low speeds as higher distortions of current, flux and torque are observed. At higher speed, the effect

is less deteriorating. The proposed method presents a simple way to mitigate the effects of weighting factor. In the

following sections, the performance of proposed method is compared with conventional DTC and PTC to ascertain

its usefulness.

Figure 7: Effect of weighting factor on switching frequency and THD of PTC

12
 (a)

(b)

Figure 8: Effect of weighting factor variation on torque, stator flux and current in PTC at (a) base speed (b) 20%
of base speed

5.2 Transient Response

To compare the transient response of the proposed method to the conventional PTC and DTC, different tests were

conducted on the drive. The waveform of speed, torque, flux and current are shown in Figure 9 (a), (b) and (c) for

DTC, PTC and proposed method under no-load condition. The speed of the motor is increased from zero to the base

value. The magnitude of the starting stator current reaches approximately 20 A for all the methods. The transient

behavior of the proposed method is also comparable to the conventional methods in terms of rise time, settling time

and ripples.

Similar to no-load test, speed reversal tests at base and low speeds are also conducted to investigate the different

quadrant operations of the drive under different controllers. The results for speed reversal at base speed are shown

in Figure 10 (a), (b) and (c) for DTC, PTC and proposed method, respectively. The motor speed is reversed from

13
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 9: Speed, torque, stator flux and current response at no-load condition for (a) DTC (b) PTC (c) Proposed
Method

14
the base value in opposite direction at t = 1 s. The torque and current undergo transience while flux remains

unaffected indicating completely uncoupled control for the proposed method. Similar speed reversal experiment is

performed at low speed (20% of base speed) and results are shown in Figure 11 (a), (b) and (c) for DTC, PTC and

proposed method. These tests show that the performance of proposed method at low speed under reversal conditions

is comparable with the performance of other standard methods.

Finally, to see the effects of step change in load on the transient behavior of the three methods, motor load torque

is changed from 0 to 10 N m (100% of the rated load) at t = 1 s while motor is operating at base speed. The results

of this test are shown in Figure 12 (a), (b) and (c). All the methods show very fast torque dynamic behavior with a

rise time of 20 ms on the average. An average decrease of 7% in speed is also observed for all the methods which is

due to the reason that the PI controller does not have disturbance rejection capabilities in this case.

5.3 Steady State Response

The comparison of the steady state performance of three control methods is presented in Figure 13 (a), (b) and (c)

for rated torque and base speed operation. Basic performance measure such as average torque ripple, average flux

ripple and phase a current THD are also shown on the respective figures. From these results, we see that basic DTC

exhibits highest THD and average ripples as compared to PTC and proposed method. It is worth noting here that

flux hysteresis band for both DTC and proposed H-PTC has been kept same. The poor performance of DTC in

terms of THD and torque ripple owes to the selection of bands. The given bands are just to show the advantages of

H-PTC over conventional DTC. Since all the weighting factor removal methods offer similar steady state performance

except computational efficiency, therefore, it is also essential to compare the computational performance of proposed

method with other weighting factor removal techniques. For this purpose, two weighting factor removal methods

namely Fuzzy Decision Making PTC (FDM-PTC) [36,50] and Multi-Objective Ranking PTC (MOR-PTC) [8,33] are

selected and their computational burdens are compared to conventional PTC and proposed H-PTC. The results are

summarized in Table 5 in the form of average computational time for different steps under steady state conditions.

It can be observed from the table that proposed controller takes lower execution time as compared to other methods.

Although, measurement and estimation times for all of the compared methods are almost same, the real difference

lies in prediction and optimization. Average computational time required to run a complete cycle of PTC is around

23.7 µs as compared to 13.4 µs for H-PTC. Similarly, FDM-PTC takes an average of 26 µs and MOR-PTC takes

24.35 µs to determine the optimal vector. The higher computational burdens of FDM-PTC and MOR-PTC are due

to their complex formulations and the involvement of weighting factors. The lower burden for H-PTC is due to

(i) lower number of prediction vectors (ii) weighting-factor-free cost function and (iii) a single term cost function.

Therefore, a slight compromise on the performance fully justifies the benefits achieved in proposed method. The

15
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 10: Speed, torque, stator flux and current response at base speed reversal condition with no-load for (a) DTC
(b) PTC (c) Proposed Method

16
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 11: Speed, torque, stator flux and current response at low-speed (20% of base speed) reversal condition with
no-load for (a) DTC (b) PTC (c) Proposed Method

17
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 12: Speed, torque, stator flux and current response under step change in load torque test (a) DTC (b) PTC
(c) Proposed Method

18
total execution time validates the computational superiority of the proposed H-PTC over the conventional PTC,

FDM-PTC and MOR-PTC.

To see that proposed H-PTC offers comparable performance in terms of harmonics, the phase a current spectra

are presented in Figure 14 for three methods. The spectra are obtained under steady state when the motor is running

at base speed of 120 rad/s (f = 38.12 Hz). The current spectra confirms the comparability of the performance in

terms of harmonics.

Table 5: Execution time of PTC, FDM-PTC, MOR-PTC and H-PTC

Execution time ( µs) PTC FDM-PTC MOR-PTC H-PTC

Measurement 4.01 4.02 4.02 4.01
Estimation 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.05
Prediction 6.02 6.01 6.02 1.01
Flux sector determination − − − 0.2
Switching vector selection − − − 0.5
Fuzzy decision function optimization − 26 − −
Rank based optimal voltage vector − − 24.35 −
Cost function optimization 8.6 − − 2.65
Total 23.69 41.10 39.47 13.42

5.4 Performance under Variable Speed

The advantages of the proposed scheme and weighting-factor-free operation can further be emphasized by variable

speed operation tests for the conventional PTC and proposed method. Figure 15 (a) and (b) present the waveform

of speed, torque, flux and current when operating speed is reduced in steps from base speed of 120 rad/s to 50%

of the base speed at t = 1 s and to 5% of the base speed at t = 2 s. From the results of PTC, we see that

as the speed is reduced, flux regulation and current quality is greatly impacted by the fixed weighting factor and

decoupling between flux and torque operation is lost at lower speeds where THD is around 66%. However, this type

of performance deterioration is not observed in proposed method because there is no weighting factor involved and

a complete decoupled operation is achieved at all operating speeds under a fixed width of the hysteresis band. The

same effects can also be observed when this test is performed under loaded conditions. Fig. 16 (a) and (b) represent

speed, torque, flux and current when motor is loaded with 10 Nm under speed variations in steps. However, in this

test THD in PTC is lower due to the fact that now zero torque regulation is avoided. On zero torque, regulation

becomes challenging and THD is a bit higher. This result confirms the benefits of H-PTC’s weighting-factor-free

operation.

19
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 13: Stator voltage, torque, stator flux and current response at steady state for load torque of 10 N m (a) DTC
(b) PTC (c) Proposed Method

20
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 14: Phase a current spectra under steady state conditions (a) DTC (b) PTC (c) H-PTC

21
 (a)

(b)

Figure 15: Performance comparison between PTC and Proposed method under variable speeds of 100%, 50% and
5% (a) PTC (b) Proposed

(a)

22

(b)

Figure 16: Performance comparison between PTC and Proposed method under variable speeds of 100%, 50% and
5% at loaded condition (a) PTC (b) Proposed
 The deterioration of flux regulation can also be seen from polar plots presented in Figure 17 (a), (b) and (c) for

both methods under different speeds. These plots represent flux magnitude in complex flux plane. The radius of the

plot is nominal flux and its units are Weber. The flux trajectory for proposed method remains unaffected by the

operating speed and a smooth tracking is obtained. However, for conventional PTC, flux tracking is not perfect and

undergoes heavy ripples under lower speed operation.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 17: Comparison of stator flux regulation for PTC and Proposed method at (a) 100% of base speed (b) 50%
of base speed (c) 5% of base speed

23
5.5 Effects of the Width of Hysteresis Band

DTC and proposed methods regulate flux through hysteresis controller where control performance is determined by

the width of the hysteresis band. Therefore, it is essential to compare the effects of width of the band on decoupling.

Figure 18 (a) and (b) show torque and flux of the motor for varying bands of the flux hysteresis controller under full

load and base speed operation. It is obvious from the results that hysteresis band affects the decoupling of flux and

torque in both methods. However, as we increase the band gap, the effects in DTC are more severe as compared to

proposed method where larger torque and flux ripple are observed.

(a)

(b)

Figure 18: Effect of varying flux hysteresis band on torque and stator flux (a) DTC (b) Proposed

6 Conclusion

A modified low complexity stator flux hysteresis based PTC method without weighting factor is proposed for three

phase induction motor drives fed by two-level three-phase voltage source inverter. Unlike the conventional PTC

method, H-PTC does not involve the weighting factor and cost function consists of torque error only. The prediction

voltage vectors for the cost function are reduced to two active and one null vector with the use of flux hysteresis

controller and sector determination block. The reduction in admissible voltage vectors does not come at the cost

of deteriorated performance as validated by the experimental results. The proposed method shows almost similar

dynamic response as the conventional PTC and DTC methods in terms of rise time, settling time, ripples, THD and

computational cost. The computational performance of H-PTC is also compared with other weighting factor tuning

algorithms including FDM-PTC, MOR-PTC and conventional PTC. It is observed that the computational burden

for H-PTC is 43% and 67% lower than conventional PTC and FDM-PTC/MOR-PTC, respectively. The proposed

24
method also outperforms conventional PTC in terms of THD in different speed regions. At low speed range the

conventional PTC produces THD of around 66%, however in H-PTC, it is around 6%. The superiority of proposed

method is validated through different speed regions in loaded condition as well. The proposed technique can be

extended multi-level inverters and multi-sector flux planes in future studies.

References

[1] Kouro S, A Perez M, Rodriguez J, M Llor A, A Young H, Perez MA. Model Predictive Control; MPC’s Role in

the Evolution of Power Electronics. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine. 2015;9(4):8-21.

[2] Abbasi MA, Husain AR, Nik Idris NR, Fasih ur Rehman SM. Computationally efficient predictive torque

control for induction motor drives based on flux positional errors and extended Kalman filter. IET Electric

Power Applications. 2021;15(6):653-67.

[3] Rodriguez J, Cortes P. Predictive Control of Power Converters and Electrical Drives. John Wiley & Sons; 2012.

[4] Bhowate A, Aware M, Sharma S. Predictive Torque Control with Online Weighting Factor Computation Tech-

nique to Improve Performance of Induction Motor Drive in Low Speed Region. IEEE Access. 2019;7(c):42309-21.

[5] Abbasi MA, Bin Husain AR. Model predictive control of a dual induction motor drive fed by a single voltage

source inverter. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences. 2018;26(3):1623-37.

[6] Talib MHN, Ibrahim Z, Abd Rahim N, Zulhani R, Nordin N, Farah N, et al. An improved simplified rules Fuzzy

Logic Speed Controller method applied for induction motor drive. ISA Transactions. 2020;105:230-9. Available

from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2020.05.040.

[7] Hassan M, Ge X, Teklu A, Shahid M, Bilal M, Atif R, et al. A look-up table-based model predictive torque

control of IPMSM drives with duty cycle optimization. ISA Transactions. 2023;(xxxx). Available from: https:

//doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2023.02.007.

[8] Mamdouh M, Abido MA, Hamouz Z. Weighting Factor Selection Techniques for Predictive Torque Control of

Induction Motor Drives: A Comparison Study. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 2018;43(2):433-45.

[9] Abbasi MA, Husain AR, Idris NRN, Anjum W, Bassi H, Rawa MJH. Predictive Flux Control for Induction Motor

Drives with Modified Disturbance Observer for Improved Transient Response. IEEE Access. 2020;8:112484-95.

[10] Muddineni VP, Bonala AK, Sandepudi SR. Enhanced weighting factor selection for predictive torque control of

induction motor drive based on VIKOR method. IET Electric Power Applications. 2016;10(9):877-88.

25
[11] Muddineni VP, Sandepudi SR, Bonalac AK. Predictive torque control of induction motor drive with simplified

weighting factor selection. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy

Systems (PEDES); 2016. .

[12] Shadmand MB, Jain S, Balog RS. Autotuning Technique for the Cost Function Weight Factors in Model

Predictive Control for Power Electronic Interfaces. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power

Electronics. 2019;7(2):1408-20.

[13] Aciego JJ, Gonzalez Prieto I, Duran MJ. Model Predictive Control of Six-Phase Induction Motor Drives Using

Two Virtual Voltage Vectors. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2019;7(1):321-

30.

[14] Ravi Eswar KM, Venkata Praveen Kumar K, Vinay Kumar T. Enhanced Predictive Torque Control with

Auto-Tuning Feature for Induction Motor Drive. Electric Power Components and Systems. 2018;46(7):825-36.

Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2018.1509157.

[15] Bhowate A, Aware M, Sharma S. Rank Ordering Criteria Based Weighting Factor Evaluation in Model Predictive

Torque Control of Five-phase Induction Motor Drive. Proceedings of 2018 IEEE International Conference on

Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems, PEDES 2018. 2018:1-5.

[16] Muddineni VP, Sandepudi SR, Bonala AK. Improved Weighting Factor Selection for Predictive Torque Control

of Induction Motor Drive Based on a Simple Additive Weighting Method. Electric Power Components and

Systems. 2017;45(13):1450-62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2017.1347215.

[17] Abbaszadeh A, Khaburi DA, Mahmoudi H, Rodriguez J. Simplified model predictive control with variable

weighting factor for current ripple reduction. IET Power Electronics. 2017;10(10):1165-74.

[18] Davari SA, Khaburi DA, Kennel R. An improved FCS-MPC algorithm for an induction motor with an imposed

optimized weighting factor. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2012;27(3):1540-51.

[19] Bindal RK, Kaur I. Torque ripple reduction of Induction Motor using Dynamic Fuzzy Prediction Direct Torque

Control. ISA Transactions. 2020;99:322-38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2019.09.

012.

[20] Guazzelli PRU, de Andrade Pereira WC, de Oliveira CMR, de Castro AG, de Aguiar ML. Weighting Factors

Optimization of Predictive Torque Control of Induction Motor by Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm. IEEE

Transactions on Power Electronics. 2018;34(7):6628-38.

26
[21] Arshad MH, Abido MA, Salem A, Elsayed AH. Weighting Factors Optimization of Model Predictive Torque

Control of Induction Motor Using NSGA-II with TOPSIS Decision Making. IEEE Access. 2019;7:177595-606.

[22] GÜREL A, ZERDALİ E. Metaheuristic Optimization of Predictive Torque Control for Induction Motor Control.

Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2021;11(1):55-61.

[23] Davari SA, Nekoukar V, Garcia C, Rodriguez J. Online Weighting Factor Optimization by Simplified Simulated

Annealing for Finite Set Predictive Control. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 2021;17(1):31-40.

[24] Lammouchi Z, Barra K. Particle swarm weighting factor optimisation for predictive control of three level inverter

with balanced voltages. International Journal of Power Electronics. 2020;12(3):302-16.

[25] Zietkiewicz J, Kozierski P, Giernacki W. Particle swarm optimisation in nonlinear model predictive control;

comprehensive simulation study for two selected problems. International Journal of Control. 2021;94(10):2623-

39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207179.2020.1727957.

[26] Abdelrahem M, Ismeil MA, Ali A, Gaafar MA, Kennel R. Weight optimisation for model predictive control

based on particle swarm optimisation. PCIM Europe Conference Proceedings. 2020;1(July):1418-24.

[27] Su TJ, Tsou TY, Wang SM, Li TY, Vu HQ. Torque ripple reduction of induction motor based on a hybrid method

of model predictive torque control and particle swarm optimization. Advances in Mechanical Engineering.

2016;8(10):1-13.

[28] Tofighi E, Mahdizadeh A. Automatic weight determination in nonlinear model predictive control of wind turbines

using swarm optimization technique. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2016;753(5).

[29] Sahin I, Keysan O, Monmasson E. Experimental tuning and design guidelines of a dynamically reconfigured

weighting factor for the predictive torque control of an induction motor. 2020 22nd European Conference on

Power Electronics and Applications, EPE 2020 ECCE Europe. 2020:1-8.

[30] Fretes H, Rodas J, Doval-Gandoy J, Gomez V, Gomez N, Novak M, et al. Pareto Optimal Weighting Factor

Design of Predictive Current Controller of a Six-Phase Induction Machine Based on Particle Swarm Optimization

Algorithm. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2022;10(1):207-19.

[31] Lin X, Huang W, Jiang W, Zhao Y, Wu X, Zhu S. Predictive Torque Control for Open-End Winding PMSM

with Common DC Bus Based on Weighting Factorless and Finite Control Set Optimization. IEEE Journal of

Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2021;9(2):1479-93.

27
[32] Zhu T, Nazir MS, Ali Mokhtarzadeh A, Abdalla AN, Nazir HMJ, Chen W. Improve Performance of Induction

Motor Drive using Weighting Factor approach-based Gravitational Search Algorithm. International Journal of

Electronics. 2022;109(5):900-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207217.2021.1964615.

[33] Rojas CA, Rodriguez J, Villarroel F, Espinoza JR, Silva CA, Trincado M. Predictive torque and flux control

without weighting factors. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2013;60(2):681-90.

[34] Li H, Lin J, Lu Z. Three vectors model predictive torque control without weighting factor based on electromag-

netic torque feedback compensation. Energies. 2019;12(7).

[35] Wu X, Song W, Xue C. Low-complexity model predictive torque control method without weighting factor for

five-phase PMSM based on hysteresis comparators. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power

Electronics. 2018;6(4):1650-61.

[36] Rojas CA, Rodriguez J, Villarroel F, Espinoza J, Khaburi DA. Multiobjective Fuzzy Predictive Torque Control

of an induction motor drive. 6th Annual International Power Electronics, Drive Systems, and Technologies

Conference, PEDSTC 2015. 2015;(February):201-6.

[37] Zhang Y, Yang H, Xia B. Model predictive torque control of induction motor drives with reduced torque ripple.

IET Electric Power Applications. 2015;9(9):595-604.

[38] Lu Z, Zhang R, Hu L, Gan L, Lin J, Gong P. Model predictive control of induction motor based on amplitude-

phase motion equation. IET Power Electronics. 2019;12(9):2400-6.

[39] Zhang Y, Yang H. Two-Vector-Based Model Predictive Torque Control Without Weighting Factors for Induction

Motor Drives. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2016;31(2):1381-90.

[40] Wang F, Xie H, Chen Q, Davari SA, Rodriguez J, Kennel R. Parallel Predictive Torque Control for Induction

Machines without Weighting Factors. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2020;35(2):1779-88.

[41] Hassan M, Ge X, Atif R, Woldegiorgis AT, Mastoi MS, Shahid MB. Computational efficient model predictive cur-

rent control for interir permanent magnet synchronous motor drives. IET Power Electronics. 2022;15(12):1111-33.

[42] Elmorshedy MF, Xu W, El-Sousy FFM, Islam MR, Ahmed AA. Recent Achievements in Model Predictive

Control Techniques for Industrial Motor: A Comprehensive State-of-the-Art. IEEE Access. 2021;9:58170-91.

[43] Novak M, Xie H, Dragicevic T, Wang F, Rodriguez J, Blaabjerg F. Optimal Cost Function Parameter Design

in Predictive Torque Control (PTC) Using Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). IEEE Transactions on Industrial

Electronics. 2021;68(8):7309-19.

28
[44] Xiong C, Xu H, Guan T, Zhou P. A Constant Switching Frequency Multiple-Vector-Based Model Predictive Cur-

rent Control of Five-Phase PMSM with Nonsinusoidal Back EMF. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics.

2020;67(3):1695-707.

[45] Caseiro LMA, Mendes AMS, Cruz SMA. Dynamically Weighted Optimal Switching Vector Model Predictive

Control of Power Converters. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2019;66(2):1235-45.

[46] Saeed MSR, Song W, Huang L, Yu B. Double-Vector-Based Finite Control Set Model Predictive Control for

Five-Phase PMSMs With High Tracking Accuracy and DC-Link Voltage Utilization. IEEE Transactions on

Power Electronics. 2022;37(12):15234-44.

[47] Kusuma E, Eswar KMR, Vinay Kumar T. An Effective Predictive Torque Control Scheme for PMSM Drive

without Involvement of Weighting Factors. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics.

2021;9(3):2685-97.

[48] Muddineni VP, Sandepudi SR, Bonala AK. Finite control set predictive torque control for induction mo-

tor drive with simplified weighting factor selection using TOPSIS method. IET Electric Power Applications.

2017;11(5):749-60.

[49] Eswar KMR, Kumar KVP, Kumar TV. A Simplified Predictive Torque Control Scheme for Open-End Winding

Induction Motor Drive. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2019;7(2):1162-72.

[50] Tang L, Xu W, Wang X, Dong D, Xiao X, Zhang Y. Weighting Factors Optimization of Model Predictive

Control Based on Fuzzy Thrust Constraints for Linear Induction Machine. IEEE Transactions on Applied

Superconductivity. 2021;31(8).

[51] Yang A, Lu Z. Multiscalar Model-Based Predictive Torque Control Without Weighting Factors and Current

Sensors for Induction Motor Drives. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics.

2022;10(5):5785-97.

[52] Vu HC, Lee HH. Model-Predictive Current Control Scheme for Seven-Phase Voltage-Source Inverter with

Reduced Common-Mode Voltage and Current Harmonics. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in

Power Electronics. 2021;9(3):3610-21.

[53] Muddineni VP, Bonala AK, Sandepudi SR. Grey Relational Analysis-Based Objective Function Optimization for

Predictive Torque Control of Induction Machine. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications. 2021;57(1):835-

44.

29
[54] Abbaszadeh A, Khaburi DA, Mahmoudi H, Rodrı́guez J. Simplified model predictive control with variable

weighting factor for current ripple reduction. IET Power Electronics. 2017;10(10):1165-74.

[55] Abbasi MA, Husain AR, Idris NRN, ur Rehman SMF. Modified model predictive torque control for induc-

tion motors with improved robustness against mutual inductance mismatching. International Transactions on

Electrical Energy Systems. 2021;31(8):1-16.

[56] Shahid MB, Jin W, Abbasi MA, Husain AR, Hassan M. Torque Error Based Auto-tuning of Weighting Factor in

Model Predictive Torque Control of Induction Motor Drive. Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology.

2022;17(0123456789). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42835-022-01250-9.

[57] Babaie M, Mehrasa M, Sharifzadeh M, Al-Haddad K. Floating Weighting Factors ANN-MPC Based on Lya-

punov Stability for Seven-Level Modified PUC Active Rectifier. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics.

2022;69(1):387-98.

[58] Zhu T, Nazir MS, Ali Mokhtarzadeh A, Abdalla AN, Nazir HMJ, Chen W. Improve Performance of Induction

Motor Drive using Weighting Factor approach-based Gravitational Search Algorithm. International Journal of

Electronics. 2022;109(5):900-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207217.2021.1964615.

[59] Liu C, Xing X, Du C, Zhang B, Zhang C, Blaabjerg F. An Improved Model Predictive Control Method Using

Optimized Voltage Vectors for Vienna Rectifier with Fixed Switching Frequency. IEEE Transactions on Power

Electronics. 2023;38(1):358-71.

[60] Vujji A, Dahiya R. Experimental Evaluation of VIKOR-Based Cost Function Optimization of Finite Control

Set-Predictive Torque Control for Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Drive. Journal of Failure Analysis

and Prevention. 2022;22(3):1236-51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-022-01421-w.

[61] Rodriguez J, Cortes P. Predictive Control of Power Converters and Electrical Drives; 2012.

[62] Sutikno T, Idris NRN, Jidin A. A review of direct torque control of induction motors for sustainable reliability

and energy efficient drives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;32:548-58. Available from: http:

//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.040.

[63] De Klerk ML, Saha AK. A Comprehensive Review of Advanced Traction Motor Control Techniques Suitable

for Electric Vehicle Applications. IEEE Access. 2021;9:125080-108.

[64] Habibullah M, Lu DDC, Xiao D, Rahman MF. A Simplified Finite-State Predictive Direct Torque Control for

Induction Motor Drive. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2016;63(6):3964-75.

30