energies
Article
Different Control Techniques of Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Motor with Fuzzy Logic for Electric Vehicles:
Analysis, Modelling, and Comparison
Khoudir Kakouche 1 , Adel Oubelaid 1 , Smail Mezani 2 , Djamila Rekioua 1 and Toufik Rekioua 1, *
Citation: Kakouche, K.; Oubelaid, A.;
Mezani, S.; Rekioua, D.; Rekioua, T.
Different Control Techniques of
Permanent Magnet Synchronous
Motor with Fuzzy Logic for Electric
Vehicles: Analysis, Modelling, and
Comparison. Energies 2023, 16, 3116.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073116
Academic Editor: Daniel Chindamo
Received: 26 February 2023
Revised: 22 March 2023
Accepted: 27 March 2023
Published: 29 March 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2023, 16, 3116. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073116
1 Laboratoire de Technologie Industrielle et de l’Information, Faculté de Technologie, Université de Bejaia,
Bejaia 06000, Algeria; khoudir.kakouche@univ-bejaia.dz (K.K.); adel.oubelaid@univ-bejaia.dz (A.O.);
dja_rekioua@yahoo.fr (D.R.)
2 Université de Lorraine, GREEN, F-54000 Nancy, France; smail.mezani@univ-lorraine.fr
* Correspondence: toufik.rekioua@univ-bejaia.dz
Abstract: This paper presents a detailed analysis and comparative study of three torque control
methodologies with fuzzy logic, namely direct torque control (DTC), fuzzy direct torque control
(FDTC), and model predictive direct torque control (MPDTC), for PMSM control applied to an
electric vehicle. The three control strategies are designed and developed to control torque in order to
achieve vehicle requirements, such as minimum torque and flux ripples, fast dynamic response, and
maximum efficiency. To enhance the performance and efficiency of the overall drive, a bidirectional
DC/DC buck-boost converter is connected to the Li-ion battery. In addition, a fuzzy logic controller
(FLC) is used in the outer loop to control the speed of the PMSM. As a result, the tuning difficulty of
the conventional proportional-integral (PI) controller is avoided and the dynamic speed response is
improved. Simulation results obtained from the three control techniques establish that the proposed
system via the MPDTC technique reduces the torque ripples, flux ripples, reduces the THD of the
PMSM current, and achieves a faster transient response. Additionally, the MPTDC technique enabled
the electric vehicle to cover the longest distance, with approximately 110.72 km in a charging cycle.
The real-time simulation is developed using the RT LAB simulator, and the obtained results confirm
the superiority of the MPDTC technique over conventional DTC and FDTC techniques.
Keywords: direct torque control; fuzzy direct torque control; Li-ion-battery; model predictive direct
torque control; permanent magnet synchronous motor; electric vehicle
1. Introduction
The transportation and automotive industries face a major challenge in reducing
environmental impacts, particularly in terms of CO2 emissions, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen
oxides. Policies aim to reach carbon neutrality in this sector by 2050 as part of the ecological
and energy transition [1]. Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs),
and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are considered key solutions to current environmental
problems. BEVs are purely electric vehicles powered solely by batteries; they offer many
advantages, such as zero emissions, optimal performances, independence from oil, and a
quiet and smooth operation with little environmental noise [2,3]. The automotive industry
and the scientific community attach great importance to the development of electric vehicles
(EVs), focusing on key aspects of their performances. Ongoing research aims to improve
the energy source of EVs, their structure, and their electrical drive system, which is a major
area of interest for automotive manufacturers and researchers. The propulsion system
of an EV consists mainly of an electric motor, a controller, a battery stack, and power
converters. To ensure the propulsion of EVs, there are several types of electric motors, such
as direct current (DC) motors, induction motors (IM), variable reluctance motors (VRM),
and permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSM) [4,5].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 2 of 28

The PMSM has gained significant attention for its potential in high-performance auto-
motive applications. Its exceptional characteristics, including high power density, excellent
efficiency, and remarkable torque density, make it a promising choice [6,7]. Today, there
are many control strategies for PMSM drives, including field-oriented control (FOC) [8],
direct flux control (DFC) [9], and direct torque control (DTC) [10]. Compared to the FOC
and the DFC, the DTC offers better torque response and is considered a more appropriate
control algorithm for PMSM. However, classical DTC has problems, such as significant
torque, flux, and current ripples, a variable switching frequency, and other low-speed
problems [11]. Many methods have been proposed to mitigate these drawbacks. The
authors of [12,13] proposed a DTC-SVM scheme based on a constant switching frequency.
In [14], the authors used multilevel inverters to improve the DTC. However, high switch-
ing losses appeared. The authors of [15,16] optimized the PI regulator parameters using
the genetic algorithm (GA), and the particle swarm optimization (PSO), resulting in an
improvement in the transient response. However, there is not much reduction in torque
and flux ripple in steady state. In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on
integrating artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, such as neural networks and fuzzy logic,
into DTC to enhance its performance. To improve the DTC technique, the researchers
of [17] proposed replacing the torque and flux hysteresis regulators with fuzzy logic con-
trollers. In [18], the authors proposed the use of a switching controller based on artificial
neural network, while in [19], the authors proposed a fuzzy logic switching controller, and
the results showed good performance in steady state. Predictive model control (MPC)
combined with DTC has attracted the attention of researchers due to its high performance
and simplicity of implementation [20–22]. MPC relies on a mathematical model to predict
the behavior of a system and then minimizes a pre-determined cost function to achieve
the desired control goals. In [7,23–25], a new MPDTC scheme is proposed to minimize
torque and flux ripples, as well as the PMSM current THD. In [26], an improved MPDTC
method is proposed to increase torque by enhancing the magnetic field with constant
load angle, and the experimental results show that the torque capacity of the proposed
method has been improved and the extreme output torque is stable. In [27,28], the authors
further reduced torque and flux ripple by proposing a predictive control technique by pulse
width modulation (MPTC-PWM). The authors of [29,30] proposed discrete space vector
modulation (DSVM) to achieve flux-linkage and electromagnetic torque ripple reduction
in finite-set model predictive torque control (FS-MPTC). In [31], the authors proposed an
MPTC based on a discrete-time state-space model, and the experimental results showed
good performance, including a reduction in torque ripple, minimal current THD, and fast
dynamic response of torque.
There are many control techniques for electric machines that offer various possibilities
for optimal control. However, it is still uncertain which technique provides the best
results due to the differences in electric machines and their parameters. Most studies only
compare basic DTC with a modified DTC, or they compare different modified DTC schemes.
However, few studies have compared different improved DTC techniques, and none have
included FDTC and MPDTC methods. Additionally, these studies have not considered the
impact on battery performance.
In this work, three control strategies, namely DTC, FDTC, and MPDTC, are analyzed
and compared. The three control strategies are designed and developed to control the
torque in order to meet the requirements of the vehicle. The results obtained using Mat-
lab/Simulink and those obtained using a RT LAB simulator clearly showed that the system
proposed using the MPDTC technique reduces torque and flux ripples, as well as the
current THD of PMSM, and results in a faster transient response.
To achieve the mentioned objectives, this document is organized into six sections:
Section 1 is an introduction that provides a general idea of the studied field. In Section 2,
the detailed description and modeling of the studied system is given. In Section 3, the DTC,
FDTC, and MPDTC control strategies are explicitly detailed. The simulation results ob-
 DTC, FDTC, and MPDTC control strategies are explicitly detailed. The simulation results
obtained are presented in Section 4. Section 5 presents the results obtained by the real
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 28
time RT Lab simulator. Finally, a main conclusion summarizes and proves the proposed
strategies.
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 3 of 28
DTC, FDTC, and MPDTC control strategies are explicitly detailed. The simulation results
2. System Configuration and Modeling
obtained are presented in Section 4. Section 5 presents the results obtained by the real-
time Figure
RT Lab 1 shows the
simulator. general
Finally, configuration of an electric
andvehicle, which includes a Li
tained are presented in Section 4.aSection
main conclusion
5 presents summarizes proves
the results obtained the
by the proposed
real-time RT
ion battery power supply unit, a DC/DC buck-boost converter, a DC/AC converter, a
strategies.
Lab simulator. Finally, a main conclusion summarizes and proves the proposed strategies.
PMSM with its final gearbox, the electric vehicle drive (EVD), and various sensors and
2.
2. System
SystemConfiguration
transducers. The Li-ion
Configuration and Modeling
battery
and Modelingprovides power to the vehicle through a bi-directiona
buck-boost
Figure 11converter,
Figure shows
showsthe while
thegeneral
generalthe control pulses
configuration
configuration an(CP)
of of generated
electric
an vehicle,
electric by
vehicle, the
which EVD’s
includes
which torque
a Li-a contro
includes
ion battery power supply unit, a DC/DC buck-boost converter, a
techniques are applied to the voltage source inverter (VSI) to operate the PMSM.
Li-ion battery power supply unit, a DC/DC buck-boost converter, aDC/AC
DC/AC converter,
converter, aa
PMSM with its final gearbox, the electric vehicle drive (EVD), and various
PMSM with its final gearbox, the electric vehicle drive (EVD), and various sensors and sensors and
transducers.
transducers. TheTheLi-ion
Li-ionbattery
batteryprovides
providespower
powerto to the
the vehicle
vehicle through
through aa bi-directional
bi-directional
buck-boost
buck-boost converter,
converter, while
while the
the control
control pulses
pulses (CP)
(CP) generated
generated byby the
theEVD’s
EVD’storque
torquecontrol
control
techniques
techniques are
are applied
applied toto the
the voltage
voltage source
source inverter (VSI) to operate the PMSM.

Figure 1. Electric vehicle configuration.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Electric
Electricvehicle
vehicleconfiguration.
configuration.
2.1. Mathematical Model of the Electric Vehicle
2.1. Mathematical
2.1. Mathematical
When an electric Modelof
Model of the Electric
vehicle
the Electric Vehicle on a slope (β) at a certain velocity (v), it is subjected
is driving
Vehicle
to multiple
When an forces,
When an electric such as
vehicle
electric vehicle is rolling on
driving
is driving resistance
on aaslope
slope ((β)β)force (Froll),velocity
ataacertain
at certain aerodynamic
velocity((v), drag force (Faero)
v), ititisissubjected
subjected
to multiple forces, such as rolling resistance force (F ), aerodynamic drag2.force (F ),
slope force (F
to multiple forces, such as rolling resistance force (Froll), aerodynamic drag force (Faero), traction
slope ), and acceleration force (F acc), as depicted
roll in Figure The total
aero
slope force
forceforce (F
(Ft) that ), and acceleration force (F ), as depicted in Figure 2. The total traction
slope (Fslopeis
slope), necessary
and accelerationto drive the(Fvehicle
force acc can be expressed
acc), as depicted in Figure 2.as follows
The [32,33]:
total traction
force (F ) that is necessary to drive the vehicle can be expressed as follows [32,33]:
force (Ftt) that is necessary to drive the vehicle can be expressed as follows [32,33]:
Ft = Froll + Faero + Fslope + Facc (1
t ==FF
FF
t roll ++FF
roll
aero ++Fslope
F ++FF
aero
acc
slope acc
(1)
(1)

Figure
Figure2.2.2.Force
Figure Force
Forceapplied
applied to
appliedtothe
the vehicle.
vehicle.
to the vehicle.
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 4 of 28

2.1.1. Rolling Resistance Force

This force is mainly due to the friction of the vehicle’s tires on the road. It acts in the
opposite direction of the movement of the vehicle. The mathematical expression for the
rolling resistance force is:
Froll = mg f ro cos( β) (2)
where m, g and fro are the vehicle total mass, the gravity acceleration and the coefficients of
rolling resistance, respectively.

2.1.2. Aerodynamic Drag

Aerodynamic drag force is caused by the friction of the air overall body of the vehicle
while moving. The magnitude of this force depends on the direction of the wind, the frontal
area of the vehicle, and its shape. Its expression is given by:

1
Faero = ρ A C ( v + v w )2 (3)
2 air f d
where ρ air , A f and Cd are the air density, the vehicle frontal surface and the penetration air
coefficient, respectively.

2.1.3. Slope Force

The slope force refers to the gravitational force acting on a vehicle as it moves along an
inclined surface. This force is dependent on the slope angle (β) of the road and is directly
proportional to the mass (m) of the vehicle. This force is expressed as follows:

Fslope = mg sin( β) (4)

2.1.4. Acceleration Force

This force represents the dynamic term for the vehicle’s acceleration or deceleration,
and it can be expressed as follows:

dVe
Facc = k m m = k m mγ (5)
dt
where km is the rotational inertia coefficient, γ is the vehicle acceleration.
The total tractive force (Ft ) is the sum of all these forces and can be given by:

Ft = Ftire + Faero + Fslope + Facc

(6)
= mg f ro cos( β) + 12 ρ air A f Cd (v + vw )2 + mg sin( β) + k m mγ

The total tractive torque is related to the tractive force by the relation:

Tt = Ft · r (7)

Finally, the torque produced by the traction motor can be calculated by:
" #
Ft · r r mg f ro cos( β) + 21 ρ air A f Cd (v + vw )2
Tm = = (8)
ηG G ηG G +mg sin( β) + k m mγ

where r, ηG and G are the wheel radius, the transmission efficiency, and the reduction gear
ratio, respectively.
The vehicle parameters are given in Table 1 [23].
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 28

Energies 2023, 16, 3116 5 of 28

Table 1. Electric vehicle parameters.

Parameters Values Units

Vehicle
Table totalvehicle
1. Electric (𝒎)
mass parameters. 1325 kg
Air density (𝝆𝒂𝒊𝒓 ) 1.20 kg/m²
Parameters Values Units
Frontal area (𝑨𝒇 ) 2.57 m²
Vehicle
Tiretotal mass
radius (r)(m) 1325
0.30 kg
m
Aircoefficient
density (ρ air(𝑪
) 𝒅) 1.20 kg/m 2
Drag 0.30 -
Gear ratio
Frontal (G)f )
area (A 5.20
2.57 m-2
Tire radius (r) 0.30 m
2.2. Voltage Source Inverter Model
Drag coefficient (Cd ) 0.30 -
In this work, a two-level voltage source inverter (2L-VSI) is considered to feed a
Gear ratio (G) 5.20 -
PMSM. The DC bus voltage (Vdc) and the switching signals define the output phase volt-
ages of VSI, as expressed in Equation (9) [34,35].
2.2. Voltage Source Inverter Model
= S aVdc(2L-VSI) is considered to feed a PMSM.
Vainverter
In this work, a two-level voltage source

The DC bus voltage (Vdc ) and the switching = S bVdc
Vbsignals define the output phase voltages of VSI,
(9)
as expressed in Equation (9) [34,35].  V =SV
  c c dc

 Va = Sa V
Table 2 and Figure 3 display the switching dcstates and their corresponding voltage
V = Sb Vdc (9)
 b states,
vectors. There are eight possible switching with two being zero voltage vectors (V0,
Vc = Sc Vdc
V7) and six being non-zero voltage vectors (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6).
Table 2 and Figure 3 display the switching states and their corresponding voltage
Table 2. Switching
vectors. There arestates
eightand voltage
possible vectors ofstates,
switching the VSI.
with two being zero voltage vectors (V 0 ,
V 7 ) and six being non-zero voltage vectors (V 1 , V 2 , V 3 , V 4 , V 5 , V 6 ).
( Sa , Sb , Sc ) Voltage Vectors V ( Sa , Sb , Sc ) Voltage Vectors V
2
(0, 0, 0) V =vectors
Table 2. Switching states and voltage 0 0
of the VSI.
(0, 1, 1) V4 = − Vdc
3
(Sa ,Sb ,Sc ) Voltage Vectors V (Sa ,Sb ,Sc ) Voltage Vectors V
2 1 3
(1,
(0, 0, 0)
0, 0) V1V=0 =V0dc (0,
(0, 0,
1, 1)
1) V5 = V
−4 = Vdc−−2 jV Vdc
3 3 3 3√
dc

(1, 0, 0) 2 (0, 0, 1) 1 3
11 = 3 Vdc3
V V5 = −1 3 Vdc − j 33 Vdc
(1, 1, 0) V2 = Vdc + j √ Vdc (1, 0, 1) V6 = Vdc − j √ Vdc
(1, 1, 0) V2 = 313 Vdc + j 333 Vdc (1, 0, 1) V6 = 313 Vdc − j 333 Vdc
√
1 3
(0, 1,
(0, 1, 0)
0) V = −− 13VVdcdc++j j 33VVdcdc
V33 = (1, 1,
(1, 1, 1)
1) V77 =
V =00
3 3

Voltage vectors
Figure 3. Voltage vectors of
of the
the two-level
two-level VSI.
VSI.

2.3. Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Model

The electrical dynamic model of a PMSM in the d-q rotor reference frame are given by
Equations (10) and (11) [17,36]:

dφsd
Vsd = Rs Isd + − ωφsq (10)
dt
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 6 of 28

dφsq
Vsq = Rs Isq + + ωφsd (11)
dt
The totalized direct flux φsd and quadrature flux φsq can be determined using
Equations (12) and (13):
φsd = Lsd Isd + φ f (12)

φsq = Lsq Isq (13)

The electromagnetic torque generated by the PMSM is given by Equation (14):

3  
Te = pIsq ( Lsd − Lsd ) Isd + φ f (14)
2
Finally, the mechanical equation of the PMSM is given by:

dΩ
J − f Ω = Te − Tr (15)
dt
where J and f are the motor inertia and the viscous damping coefficient, respectively.
The PMSM parameters are summarized in Table 3 [23].

Table 3. PMSM parameters.

Parameters Values Units

Rated power (Pr ) 50 kW
Stator resistance (Rs ) 6.5 mΩ
Stator inductance (Lsd , Lsq ) 8.35 mH
PM magnet flux (φ f ) 0.1757 Wb
Number of pole pairs (p) 4 -
Motor inertia (J) 0.089 kg.m2
Viscous damping (f ) 0.005 N.s/m

2.4. Battery Model

Li-ion batteries have a higher energy density, efficiency, and longer lifespan compared
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 28
to other battery types such as Nickel-Metal Hydride, Nickel-Cadmium, lead-acid, or Nickel-
Zinc [32]. In this study, we utilize the Li-ion battery model presented in Figure 4.

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Li-ion battery
battery model.

The voltage of the Li-ion battery during charging and discharging can be calculated
using Equations (16) and (17) [23,37].
Q
V = E − R ·i − K · ( it + i*) + A exp ( − B ·it ) (16)
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 7 of 28

The voltage of the Li-ion battery during charging and discharging can be calculated
using Equations (16) and (17) [23,37].

Q
Vdischarge = E0 − R·i − K ·(it + i∗ ) + A exp(− B·it) (16)
Q − it

Q Q
Vdischarge = E0 − R·i − K ·i ∗ − K ·it + A exp(− B·it) (17)
it − 0.1Q Q − it
where E0 , it and i∗ are the Li-ion battery constant voltage, the actual Li-ion battery charge
and the filtered Li-ion battery current, respectively. R is the Li-ion battery internal resistance,
K is the polarization constant Q is the Li-ion battery capacity, A is the exponential zone
amplitude, and B is the exponential zone time constant inverse.
The state of charge of the Li-ion battery can be determined using Equation (18).

1 t
 Z 
SOCbat = 100 1 − i (t)dt (18)
Q 0

3. Control Topologies
3.1. Direct Torque Control (DTC)
The DTC was originally proposed by Takahashi and Noguchi in the mid-1980s; since
then, it has become a popular control strategy for traction applications due to its relative
simplicity compared to other control methods [8,38]. Figure 5 illustrates the DTC scheme
of a PMSM in an EV system. It comprises three-level (3L) and two-level (3L) hysteresis
controllers, a torque and flux estimator, and a switching table. Based on the PMSM model,
the torque and flux are estimated, and an optimal voltage vector is chosen based on the
sector N where the stator flux is located, as well as the torque and stator flux demands
obtained by 3L and 2L hysteresis comparators, respectively. The voltage vector selection
is provided in Table 4, where Hφs and HTe denote the output signals of the stator flux and
electromagnetic torque hysteresis comparators, respectively, and Ni and Vi represent the
ith sector and the voltage vector. After selecting the optimal voltage vector, it is applied to
the 2L-VSI to minimize the flux and torque errors. The stator flux can be estimated as given
in [11,39]:
→
Zt  → →

φs = Vs (t) − Rs Is (t) dt (19)
0

Table 4. Switching table of DTC technique.

Sector N
HTe HφS
N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6
1 V3 V4 V5 V6 V1 V2
1
0 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V1
1 V7 V0 V7 V0 V7 V0
0
0 V0 V7 V0 V7 V0 V7
1 V6 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
−1
0 V5 V6 V1 V2 V3 V4
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 28
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 8 of 28

Figure5.
Figure Blocdiagram
5.Bloc diagramof
ofthe
theDTC
DTCtechnique
techniquefor
foraaPMSM
PMSMin
inEV
EV system.
system.

Table From Equation

4. Switching (19),
table the stator
of DTC flux components are estimated by Equations (20) and (21):
technique.
Z
HTe HϕS φsα = φ f + (Vsα − SectorRs Isα )dtN (20)
N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6
1 V3 V4Z V5
V6 V1 V2
1 = V − R I dt
0 V2 φ sβ V3 sβ V4s sβ V5 V6 V1 (21)
1 V7 V0 V7 V0 V7 V0
0The estimated amplitude of the stator flux and its phase angle are given by:
0 V0 Vq7 V0 V7 V0 V7
1 V6 V 1 2 V2
φs = (φsα ) + φsβ

2 V 3 V 4 V5 (22)
−1
0 V5 V6 V1 V2 V3 V4
 
φsβ
From Equation (19), the stator flux tan−1
θs =components are estimated by Equations (20) and
(23)
(21): φsα

And the expression for the electromagnetic torque is:

φsα = φ f +  (Vsα − Rs I sα )dt (20)
3

Te = p φsα Isβ + φsβ Isα (24)
2
(
φsβ = Vsβ − Rs I sβ dt
3.2. Fuzzy Direct Torque Control (FDTC)
) (21)

The estimated DTC

Conventional amplitude of theused
is a widely stator flux and
method thatits phase
offers angle are
excellent given performance,
dynamic by:
including fast and accurate electromagnetic torque response. However, it suffers from
( ) ( )
2 2
φs = and
certain limitations, such as high torque φsα stator
+ φsflux
β
ripples as well as high current (22)
THD, due to the use of switching tables and hysteresis controllers [40,41]. To address these
limitations, a fuzzy technique has been proposed to improve the efficiency of conventional
DTC control. This technique aims to replace hysteresis φ controllers and switching tables by a
θ s = tan −1  s β  (23)
fuzzy logic controller (FLC). The FLC takes
 φ sα error (eTe ), the stator flux error (eφs ),
the torque
and the stator flux angle (θs ) as input parameters and produces the states of the voltage
And
source the expression
inverter switches for the electromagnetic
as output parameters, as torque is: in Figure 6.
illustrated
3
Te = p (φ sα I s β + φ s β I sα ) (24)
2
 THD,
from due limitations,
certain to the use ofsuch
switching
as hightables
torque and hysteresis
and controllers
stator flux ripples as[40,41].
well asTo address
high currentthese
limitations,
THD, due to the a fuzzy
use oftechnique
switching has been
tables andproposed to controllers
hysteresis improve the[40,41].
efficiency of conventional
To address these
DTC control.
limitations, Thistechnique
a fuzzy techniquehas aims to proposed
been replace hysteresis
to improve controllers and switching
the efficiency tables by
of conventional
DTCa fuzzy
control.logic
Thiscontroller
technique (FLC). The
aims to FLC takes
replace the torque
hysteresis error and
controllers (𝑒𝑇 switching
), the stator flux by
tables error
(𝑒𝜙
a fuzzy logic controller (FLC). The FLC takes the torque error (𝑒𝑇 ), the stator flux errorthe
), and the stator flux angle (𝜃 ) as input parameters and produces the states of
Energies 2023, 16, 3116
(𝑒𝜙voltage
), and source inverter
the stator switches
flux angle (𝜃 )asasoutput
input parameters,
parameters as andillustrated
producesinthe
Figure 6. of 9the
states
of 28

voltage source inverter switches as output parameters, as illustrated in Figure 6.

eTe Sa
eTe Sa
e s
e s
s Sc
s Sc

Figure 6. Schematic of the fuzzy direct torque control technique.

Figure 6. 6.
Figure Schematic of of
Schematic thethe
fuzzy direct
fuzzy torque
direct control
torque technique.
control technique.
3.2.1. Fuzzification
3.2.1. Fuzzification
3.2.1. Fuzzification
The first step in the fuzzification process is to convert the input variables into fuzzy
TheThe
variables first
first step
using
step inin the fuzzification
membership
the functions
fuzzification process is
toto
(MFs)isand
process convert the
linguistic
convert the input
terms.
input variables
variables into
into fuzzy
fuzzy
variables
•
variablesFor using
using membership
membership
torque functions
error. Thefunctions (MFs)
(MFs)
torque error and
(𝑒𝑇and linguistic
linguistic
) can terms.
terms.into three linguistic varia-
be classified
• • For bles:
For “Negative”
torque
torque error.The
error. (N),
The “Zero”
torque
torque (Z) (𝑒𝑇
error
error and
(eTe))“Positive” (P). These
can be classified
can classified into variables
intothree are inspired
threelinguistic
linguistic varia- by
variables:
the“Negative”
bles: behavior
“Negative” (N),of(N),
a three-level
“Zero” (Z)hysteresis
(Z) and
“Zero” “Positive”
and comparator.
(P). These
“Positive” As illustrated
variables
(P). These in inspired
are inspired
variables are Figure 7a,
by the the
bybe-
havior
the variableof aZthree-level
behavior is
of representedhysteresis
a three-level comparator.
byhysteresis
a triangular MF,Aswhile
comparator. illustrated
AsL and in
H Figure
illustrated in7a, the variable
are represented
Figure 7a,bythe Z
trap-
isezoidal
represented
variable Z MFs. by a triangular
is represented MF, whileMF,
by a triangular L and H are
while represented
L and by trapezoidal
H are represented MFs.
by trap-
•• ezoidal
For
Forstator
MFs.flux
stator error.The
fluxerror. Thestator
statorflux
fluxerror
error(eφ (𝑒𝜙s ) )can
canbe beclassified
classifiedinto intotwotwolinguistic
linguistic
• variables
variables “Negative”
“Negative” (N) and
(N) “Positive”
and “Positive” (P) inspired
(P) inspired from fromthe
For stator flux error. The stator flux error (𝑒𝜙 ) can be classified into two linguistic behavior
the of
behavior the two-level
of the two-
hysteresis
variables comparator.
level hysteresis
“Negative” As
comparator.shown in Figure
As shown(P)
(N) and “Positive” 7b,
in Figure the
inspired L and
7b,from H
the Lthe variables
and are
H variables
behavior represented
of thearetwo-
repre-
by
level two
sented trapezoidal
by twocomparator.
hysteresis MFs. As
trapezoidal MFs.
shown in Figure 7b, the L and H variables are repre-
•• sented
For
Forstator
stator
by two flux
flux angle. The
angle. The
trapezoidal statorflux
stator
MFs. fluxangle
angle(𝜃(θ) scan) canbebe divided
divided intointo
six six linguistic
linguistic var-
• variables
For iables (θto
stator(𝜃flux 𝜃 )θ6inspired
to
1 angle. ) The
inspiredby by
statorthe the six
sixangle
flux sectors
sectors
(𝜃 )ofcantheofbethe
sectorsector
divided selector.
selector.
into As shown
As linguistic
six shown in var- in
Figure
Figure 7c, the six variables are represented by isosceles triangular
iables (𝜃 to 𝜃 ) inspired by the six sectors of the sector selector. As shown in Figure
7c, the six variables are represented by isosceles triangular MFs. MFs.
7c, the six variables are represented by isosceles triangular MFs.
N Z P
N Z P

Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 28

-0.02 0.02 -0.5 0 0.5 eTe (N.m)
-0.02 0.02
(a) -0.5 0 0.5
(b) eTe (N.m)
(a) (b)

0° 60° 120° 180° 240° 300° 360° s (deg)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 7. Mamdani-type membership
7. Mamdani-type membershipfunctions
functions(a)(a) stator
stator fluxflux
errorerror input;
input; (b) electromagnetic
(b) electromagnetic torque
torque error input; (c) stator flux angle input; (d) stator voltage vectors output.
error input; (c) stator flux angle input; (d) stator voltage vectors output.

3.2.2.
3.2.2.Fuzzy
FuzzyControl
ControlRules
Rules
The
Thefuzzy
fuzzylogic
logicrules
rulesare
aredesigned
designedand andpresented
presentedin inTable
Table5.5.These
Theserules
rulesare
areinspired
inspired
by
bythe
theDTC
DTC switching
switching table. AA total
total of 36 fuzzy rules (3 ×
× 22××6)6)were
weredetermined
determinedbased
basedonon
the
themembership
membership functions
functions for three
three inputs
inputs and
andare
areused
usedtotoselect
selectthe
theappropriate
appropriateswitching
switch-
ing state. The Mamdani inference procedure was used to perform the proposed FLC. The
weight factor α for ith rule can be written as [10]:

α i = min ( μ A ( eTe ) , μ B ( eφ s ) , μ C ( eθ s ) )
i i i
(25)

μV (V ) = max (α i , μV (V ) )
i i
(26)
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 10 of 28

state. The Mamdani inference procedure was used to perform the proposed FLC. The
weight factor αi for ith rule can be written as [10]:


αi = min µ Ai (eTe ), µ Bi (eφs ), µCi (eθs ) (25)

µVi (V ) = max αi , µVi (V ) (26)
where µ Ai (eTe ) is the membership values of torque error, µ Bi (eφs ) is the membership values
of stator flux, and µCi (eθs ) is the membership values of flux angle.

Table 5. Fuzzy switching logic rule of FDTC.

Angle θ
eTe eφS
θ1 θ2 θ3 θ4 θ5 θ6
P V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V1
P
N V3 V4 V5 V6 V1 V2
P V7 V0 V7 V0 V7 V0
Z
N V0 V7 V0 V7 V0 V7
P V6 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
N
N V5 V6 V1 V2 V3 V4

3.2.3. Defuzzification
During this step, the resulting fuzzy sets are converted to real values using the
Max method given by Equation (27) as shown in Figure 7d. The selected voltage vec-
tor Vi (i: 0, . . . 7) at the output of FLC is converted into switching signals (Sa , Sb , Sc ) using
the Boolean expression (0 or 1) given by [10]. The resulting fuzzy direct torque control
scheme for PMSM in EV systems is presented in Figure 8, and the surfaces of the fuzzy
logic controller are shown in Figure 9.

µVout (V ) = max36


Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW n=1 µVi (V ) (27)
11 of 28

where µVout (V ) is the membership value of fuzzified output.

Figure 8.
Figure Blocdiagram
8. Bloc diagramofofthe
theFDTC
FDTCtechnique
techniquefor
forananPMSM
PMSMinin
EVEV system.
system.
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 11 of 28

Figure 8. Bloc diagram of the FDTC technique for an PMSM in EV system.

Vi

Vi
(a) (b)
Vi

(c)
Figure 9.
Figure 9. Fuzzy
Fuzzylogic
logiccontroller
controllersurfaces
surfaces(a)(a)
stator flux
stator angle,
flux torque
angle, error,
torque andand
error, voltage vectors;
voltage (b)
vectors;
stator flux angle, stator flux error, and voltage vectors; (c) stator flux error, torque error, and voltage
(b) stator flux angle, stator flux error, and voltage vectors; (c) stator flux error, torque error, and
vectors.
voltage vectors.

3.3. Model Predictive Direct Torque Control (MPDTC)

Figure 10 depicts the block diagram of the proposed MPDTC strategy, while Figure 11
shows its flowchart. The MPDTC control strategy is based on predicting the future behavior
of the system over time using an electric motor model [8]. The numerical implementation of
MPDTC for a PMSM in an EV is based on a discrete-time model. This allows the predictive
control algorithm to perform its calculations during the system’s operation and use the
results obtained for the next control cycle. Furthermore, the MPDTC feature enables the
prediction of future-sampled variables whenever they are needed during the numerical
calculation of the currents/voltages that will be applied for the next sampling time.
In this work, the MPDTC strategy is designed to control the torque and flux of the
PMSM in the electric vehicle system simultaneously. The numerical implementation of the
MPDTC algorithm is divided into two main stages. Firstly, control variables are defined,
and secondly, the voltage vector to be applied at the next sampling time is selected. To
achieve the objectives of reducing fluctuations and achieving the desired control outcomes,
a cost function is established to identify the optimal voltage vector based on the minimum
error. The forward Euler approximation is used to predict control variables in the MPDTC
system [23].
 and use the results obtained for the next control cycle. Furthermore, the M
the predictive
enables control algorithm
the prediction to perform its
of future-sampled calculations
variables during the
whenever theysystem’s op
are need
and use thecalculation
numerical results obtained
of theforcurrents/voltages
the next control cycle.
that Furthermore, the for
will be applied MPDTC
the n
enables the prediction of future-sampled variables whenever they are needed du
time.
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 numerical calculation of the currents/voltages that will be applied for12 the
of 28 next sa
time.

Figure 10.
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Block
Block
Block diagram
diagram of theof
diagram of
thethe
proposed proposed MPDTC
MPDTC MPDTC
proposed technique for antechnique
PMSMfor
technique anfor
in EV an PMSM
system.
PMSM in EV sy
in EV system.

Start
Start

Measurements:
Measurements: Is (k), Vs V
Is (k), (k),
s (k),
(k) (k)

gopt=
gopt=

Estimate: s(k), Te(k)

Estimate: s(k), Te(k)

For j=0:7
For j=0:7

Predict: sd (k+2), sq (k+2), s(k+2),

Predict: Te(k+2)sq (k+2),
sd (k+2), s(k+2),
Te(k+2)
Evaluate cost function g
(Equation
Evaluate cost40)
function g
(Equation 40)
Optimize cost function (g)

Optimize cost function (g)

j >=7

j >=7
Select optimum voltage vector

Select optimum
Figure 11. Flowchart voltage vector
of the proposed MPDTC technique.

Flowchart
Figure 11.11.
Figure of the of
Flowchart proposed MPDTC technique.
the proposed MPDTC technique.
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 13 of 28

3.3.1. Current, Flux and Torque Predictions

Equations (28) and (29) are used to predict the stator current in discrete time steps.
Additionally, Equations (30)–(32) can be used to predict the stator flux in the d-q frame,
and the electromagnetic torque can be calculated based on the predicted current and flux
values using Equation (33) [42].

ω (k) Lsq Ts
 
Rs Ts Ts
Isd (k + 1) = 1− Isd (k) + Isq (k ) + V (k) (28)
Lsd Lsd Lsd sd

ω (k)φ f Ts
 
Rs Ts ω (k) Lsd Ts Ts
Isq (k + 1) = 1− Isq (k) − Isd (k ) − + Vsq (k ) (29)
Lsq Lsq Lsq Lsq

φsd (k + 1) = Lsd Isd (k + 1) + φ f (30)

φsq (k + 1) = Lsq Isq (k + 1) (31)

q

2
φs (k + 1) = (φsd (k + 1))2 + φsq (k + 1) (32)

3

Te (k + 1) = p φsd (k + 1) Isq (k + 1) − φsq (k + 1) Isd (k + 1) (33)
2

3.3.2. Cost Function Minimization

To ensure optimal control of flux and torque, a cost function is employed. The cost
function is defined as a combination of absolute torque and flux error values and is designed
to identify the voltage vector that will produce the best control of both variables. The cost
function is expressed as follows:

g = | Te∗ − Te (k + 1)| + γ|φs∗ − φs (k + 1)| (34)

where Te∗ and φs∗ represent the reference values of torque and stator flux, respectively.
Te (k + 1) and φs (k + 1) represent the predicted values of torque and stator flux at the next
time step, respectively. The weighting factor γ is used to adjust the relative importance of
torque and flux control in the cost function.

3.3.3. Time Delay Compensation

Due to a delay resulting from the discrete-time digital implementation, the voltage
vector determined by the MPDTC controller cannot be immediately applied. The selected
voltage vector at time (k) will be applied at time (k + 1) with a delay of one step. This delay
is due to the very short sampling time. This can negatively impact the performance of the
system. To improve these performances, compensation for the delay time must be carried
out. As a result, two-step-ahead prediction (k + 2) will be considered. Equations (35)–(38)
can be used to express the stator currents, stator flux, and electromagnetic torque at time
(k + 2). Additionally, to prevent overcurrent, the cost function g can be extended by adding
a current magnitude limitation term defined in Equation (39) [7,36,40].

ω (k + 1) Lsq Ts
 
Rs Ts Ts
Isd (k + 2) = 1− Isd (k + 1) + Isq (k + 1) + V ( k + 1) (35)
Lsd Lsd Lsd sd

ω (k + 1)φ f Ts
 
Rs Ts ω (k + 1) Lsd Ts Ts
Isq (k + 2) = 1− Isq (k + 1) − Isd (k + 1) − + Vsq (k + 1) (36)
Lsq Lsq Lsq Lsq
q

2
φs (k + 2) = (φsd (k + 2))2 + φsq (k + 2) (37)
 Energies 2023, 16, 3116 14 of 28

3

Te (k + 2) = p φsd (k + 2) Isq (k + 2) − φsq (k + 2) Isd (k + 2) (38)
2

i f | Ids (k + 2)| > Imax

 ∞

∧

or Iqs (k + 2) > Imax
f Isd (k + 2), Isq (k + 2) = (39)
i f | Ids (k + 2)| ≤ Imax
 0


or Iqs (k + 2) ≤ Imax
Finally, the resulting total cost function g for MPDTC with compensation of the
computation time delay is given by Equation (40).
q
2
Te∗ 3
φs∗ (φsd (k + 2))2 + φsq (k + 2)


g= − 2p φsd (k + 2) Isq (k + 2) − φsq (k + 2) Isd (k + 2) +γ −
(40)
∧

+ f Isd (k + 2), Isq (k + 2)

3.4. Fuzzy Logic Speed Control

In this subsection, an FLC is employed to control the speed of the PMSM in the EV
system, replacing the conventional PI controller. The fuzzy controller receives two inputs,
namely the speed error (e) and its derivative (de), and generates one output, which is the
reference torque (Te *), as illustrated in Figure 12. Scaling factors are utilized at the input
and output of the FLC to adjust its sensitivity while maintaining its structure [43,44]. The
speed error (e) and its derivative (de) are normalized before being fed into the FLC, and are
expressed as follows:
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 
en = Ge ·e 15 of 28
den = Gde ·de

Figure 12. Fuzzy

Figure 12. Fuzzylogic
logicspeed
speedcontroller.
controller.

In
In this
thiswork,
work,thethespeed
speederror, its its
error, derivative, andand
derivative, the reference torque
the reference are represented
torque as
are represented
fuzzy sets that are divided into seven categories: “Large negative” (NB), “Medium
as fuzzy sets that are divided into seven categories: “Large negative” (NB), “Medium neg- negative”
(NM), “Small
ative” negative”
(NM), “Small (NS), “Zero”
negative” (NS),(Z), “Small
“Zero” (Z),positive” (PS), “Medium
“Small positive” positive” (PM),
(PS), “Medium positive”
and “Large positive” (PG). The membership functions for these categories
(PM), and “Large positive” (PG). The membership functions for these categories are shown in are
Figure 13 and are used to define the degree to which each input or output variable belongs
shown in Figure 13 and are used to define the degree to which each input or output vari-
to each category.
able belongs to each category.
Table 6 represents the fuzzy logic rules corresponding to the fuzzy speed controller.
According to this table 49 fuzzy rules (7 × 7) are determined on the basis of two inputs,
speed error and derivative speed error to select the appropriate reference torque. Mam-
NB NS dani’sPSinference
PM procedure was used to NB NS PS PM
perform the speed controller, and the center of
gravity method was applied for defuzzification to calculate the proposed controller output.

-1 -0.7 -0.3 0.3 0.7 1 e(rpm) -1 -0.7 -0.3 0.3 0.7 de(rpm)
(a) (b)

NB NS Z PS PM

Energies 2023, 16, 3116
In this work, the speed error, its derivative, and the reference torque are represented
as fuzzy sets that are divided into seven categories: “Large negative” (NB), “Medium neg-
ative” (NM), “Small negative” (NS), “Zero” (Z), “Small positive” (PS), “Medium positive”
(PM), and “Large positive” (PG). The membership functions for these categories are
shown in Figure 13 and are used to define the degree to which each input or output 15 of 28
vari-
able belongs to each category.

NB NS PS PM NB NS PS PM

-1 -0.7 -0.3 0.3 0.7 1 e(rpm) -1 -0.7 -0.3 0.3 0.7 de(rpm)
(a) (b)

NB NS Z PS PM

-1 -0.7 -0.3 0 0.3 0.7 dTe*(N.m)

(c)
Figure 13.13.Membership
Figure Membershipfunctions
functions for (a) speed
for (a) speederror;
error;(b)
(b)derivative
derivative speed
speed error;
error; (c) (c) reference
reference torque.
torque.

Table
Table 6 represents
6. Rule thecontrol.
base for speed fuzzy logic rules corresponding to the fuzzy speed controller.
According to this table 49 fuzzy rules (7 × 7) are determined on the basis of two inputs,
speed error and derivative speed error to select e the appropriate reference torque.
NB
Mamdani’s inference procedure NM used NS
was to perform ZEthe speed
PS controller,
PM and the
PB center
of gravity methodNB was NB applied forNB defuzzification
NB NBto calculate
NM the proposed
NS controller
EZ
output. NM NB NB NB NM NS EZ PS
de NS NB NB NM NS EZ PS PM
Table 6. Rule base for speed control.
ZE NB NM NS EZ PS PM PB
PS NM NS EZ e PS PM PB PB
PM NB
NS NM
EZ PSNS V5 ZE PB PS PB PM PB PB
NB
PB NB
EZ NB
PS PMNB PBNB PBNM PB NS PB EZ
de NM NB NB NB NM NS EZ PS
4. SimulationNS NBDiscussion
Results and NB NM NS EZ PS PM
In order to evaluate the efficiency of EVs and to test the dynamic performance PB
ZE NB NM NS EZ PS PM of
PS The NM
control techniques. NYCC (New NSYork CityEZ PS cycle PM
Cycle) driving is adopted PB PB
in this paper.
The dynamic performances of the PMSM in the EV system were compared using Mat-
lab/Simulink. To ensure a fair and accurate comparison of results, the tests are conducted
with similar initial conditions.

4.1. Comparison between Different Control Techniques

Figure 14 shows the speed of the electric vehicle under different control techniques
when the NYCC driving cycle is applied. It can be seen that the vehicle has satisfactory
speed tracking capability, but with different responses. The MPDTC technique stands out
from the FDTC and DTC techniques for its faster response and lower speed variation. The
speed fluctuation of the MPDTC is about 0.5 × 10−4 km/h, which is lower than that of the
conventional DTC, which is about 2.2 × 10−4 km/h, and that of the FDTC, which is about
1.1 × 10−4 km/h, presenting an improvement of 77.27% and 50.54% compared to the DTC
 when the NYCC driving cycle is applied. It can be seen that the vehicle has satisfactory
speed tracking capability, but with different responses. The MPDTC technique stands ou
from the FDTC and DTC techniques for its faster response and lower speed variation. Th
speed fluctuation of the MPDTC is about 0.5 × 10−4 km/h, which is lower than that of th
Energies 2023, 16, 3116
conventional DTC, which is about 2.2 × 10−4 km/h, and that of the FDTC, which 16 of 28
is abou
1.1 × 10 km/h, presenting an improvement of 77.27% and 50.54% compared to the DTC
−4

and FDTC techniques, respectively. In short, these results show that the MPDTC tech
nique offers
and FDTC better speed
techniques, controlInperformance
respectively. for the
short, these results electric
show that thevehicle
MPDTCduring
techniquethe NYCC
cycle.
offers better speed control performance for the electric vehicle during the NYCC cycle.

Figure 14.
Figure Electric vehicle
14. Electric vehiclespeed under
speed different
under control
different techniques
control with NYCC
techniques with driving
NYCC cycle.
driving cycle.

Figure 15 depicts the electromagnetic torque of the PMSM using the different control
Figure 15 depicts the electromagnetic torque of the PMSM using the different contro
methods. It can be noticed that the torque responses quickly follow the reference torque
methods.
during all It canorbe
high noticed
low that the torque
speed trajectories. responses
The three techniquesquickly
showedfollow the reference
remarkable tracking torqu
during all highHowever,
performance. or low speed trajectories.
significant The three
torque ripples techniques
of about 2.4 N·m showed remarkable
are observed in the track
ing
caseperformance.
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW of conventional However,
DTC whilesignificant
FDTC and torque
MPDTCripples of about 2.4
control strategies N·mlower
present are observed in th
ripples 17 of
around
case 1.9 N·m and 0.65
of conventional DTCN·m, respectively.
while FDTC and The MPDTC
MPDTCtechnique reduces torque
control strategies ripples
present lower rip
by 72.92%
ples around and 65.78%
1.9 N·m compared
and 0.65 to the DTC
N·m, and FDTCThe
respectively. techniques,
MPDTC respectively.
technique reduces torqu
ripples by 72.92% and 65.78% compared to the DTC and FDTC techniques, respectively.

Figure15.
Figure 15.Electromagnetic
Electromagnetic torque
torque of of
thethe PMSM
PMSM under
under different
different control
control techniques
techniques with with
NYCC NYCC dr
ing cycle.
driving cycle.

Figure 16 shows the stator flux of PMSM in the EV system using different contr
techniques. It can be observed that the measured stator flux follows its reference with d
ferent precision for each control technique. The MPDTC technique has a minimal stat
flux ripple of 0.001 Wb, which is lower than that observed in the classical DTC and FDT
techniques, which are 0.004 Wb and 0.002 Wb, respectively. Thus, the MPDTC techniq
 Figure 15. Electromagnetic torque of the PMSM under different control techniques with NYCC driv
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 17 of 28
ing cycle.

Figure 16 shows the stator flux of PMSM in the EV system using different contro
Figure 16Itshows
techniques. can bethe stator flux
observed thatofthe
PMSM in the EV
measured system
stator flux using different
follows controlwith dif
its reference
techniques. It can be observed that the measured stator flux follows its reference with
ferent precision for each control technique. The MPDTC technique has a minimal stato
different precision for each control technique. The MPDTC technique has a minimal stator
flux ripple of 0.001 Wb, which is lower than that observed in the classical DTC and FDTC
flux ripple of 0.001 Wb, which is lower than that observed in the classical DTC and FDTC
techniques,which
techniques, whichareare 0.004
0.004 WbWbandand0.0020.002 Wb, respectively.
Wb, respectively. Thus,
Thus, the the MPDTC
MPDTC techniquetechniqu
offersaasignificant
offers significant improvement
improvement compared
compared to other
to other techniques,
techniques, with a with a reduction
reduction of 75% of 75%
and 50% compared to DTC and FDTC,
and 50% compared to DTC and FDTC, respectively. respectively.

Figure 16.Stator
Figure16. Statorflux responses
flux of the
responses PMSM
of the under
PMSM different
under control
different techniques
control with NYCC
techniques driv- drivin
with NYCC
ing cycle.
cycle.

Figure 17 shows the stator-flux loci. It can be seen that, for all three control techniques
Figure 17 shows the stator-flux loci. It can be seen that, for all three control technique
considered,
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW the flux adopts a circular shape with constant amplitude. However, the MPDTC 18 of 2
considered, the flux adopts a circular shape with constant amplitude. However, th
technique has the best shape with a smoother and regular stator-flux locus, followed by the
MPDTC
FDTC technique
technique has the
and then the DTC
best technique.
shape with a smoother and regular stator-flux locus, fol
lowed by the FDTC technique and then the DTC technique.

Figure 17.Stator
Figure17. Statorflux loci
flux of the
loci PMSM
of the under
PMSM different
under control
different techniques
control with NYCC
techniques withdriving
NYCCcycle.
driving cycle

The values of the torque, flux, and speed ripples in the DTC, FDTC, and MPDTC
control techniques are shown in Figure 18 for various speed values. It is clearly observed
that the MPDTC control technique significantly reduces the torque, flux, and speed ripple
compared to the DTC and FDTC techniques. These results demonstrate the effectivenes
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 18 of 28
Figure 17. Stator flux loci of the PMSM under different control techniques with NYCC driving cycle.

The
The values
values of
of the
the torque, flux, and
torque, flux, and speed
speed ripples
ripplesininthe
theDTC,
DTC,FDTC,
FDTC,and andMPDTC
MPDTC
control techniques are shown in Figure 18 for various speed values. It is clearly
control techniques are shown in Figure 18 for various speed values. It is clearly observed observed
that
thatthe
theMPDTC
MPDTC control
control technique significantlyreduces
technique significantly reducesthe
thetorque,
torque,flux,
flux,and
andspeed
speedripples
ripples
compared
compared to the
the DTC
DTCandandFDTC
FDTCtechniques.
techniques. These
These results
results demonstrate
demonstrate the the effectiveness
effectiveness of
of the
the MPDTC
MPDTC technique
technique forfor reducing
reducing disturbances
disturbances in the
in the control
control systems
systems of PMSMs.
of PMSMs.

10-3
4 6
Torque ripples (N.m)

Flux ripples (Wb)

3 DTC
DTC
4
FDTC
2 3
FDTC
2
1 MPDTC
MPDTC
1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Speed (km/h) Speed (km/h)
(a) (b)
10-4
4
Speed ripples (km/h)

3
DTC

2
FDTC
1
MPDTC

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Speed (km/h)
(c)
Figure
Figure18.
18.Performance
Performanceevolution
evolutionofofthe
thedifferent
differenttechniques atat
techniques various speed
various values
speed (a)(a)
values Torque rip-
Torque
ples; (b) Flux ripples; (c) Speed ripples.
ripples; (b) Flux ripples; (c) Speed ripples.

Figure 19a–c shows the current of one phase for each control technique. It can be
noticed that the stator current is perfectly sinusoidal, and its dynamic variation corresponds
to the changes of speed and load torque. In Figure 19c, it can be seen that the MPDTC tech-
nique has the fastest current response compared to the one of classical DTC in Figure 19a,
and that of FDTC in Figure 19b.
Figure 20a–c shows the fast Fourier transform (FFT) analyses of the phase current and
the calculation of THD for the three control strategies. The stator current THD of MPDTC
is 3.37%, which is lower than that of the classical DTC, which is 6.64%, and that of FDTC,
which is 5.28%, presenting an improvement of 49.24% and 36.17% compared to the DTC
and FDTC techniques, respectively.
 Figure 19a–c shows the current of one phase for each control technique. It can be
noticed that the stator current is perfectly sinusoidal, and its dynamic variation corre-
sponds to the changes of speed and load torque. In Figure 19c, it can be seen that the
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 MPDTC technique has the fastest current response compared to the one of classical 19DTC
of 28
in Figure 19a, and that of FDTC in Figure 19b.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure19.
19.The
Thephase
phasecurrent
currentwaveform
waveformwith
withdifferent
differenttechniques
techniques(a)
(a)DTC;
DTC;(b)
(b)FDTC;
FDTC;(c)
(c)MPDTC.
MPDTC.

Figure 20a–c shows

The simulation the presented
results fast Fourierintransform (FFT) analyses
Table 7 demonstrate thatofthe
theMPDTC
phase current
control
and
technique has effectively reduced the flux and torque ripples, as well as the THD of
the calculation of THD for the three control strategies. The stator current THD of
MPDTC
the PMSM is 3.37%, which
current, is lower
when than that
compared to theof DTC
the classical
and FDTCDTC,techniques.
which is 6.64%,
Theseand that
results
of FDTC, which
reinforce is 5.28%, presenting
the superiority of the MPDTCan improvement
technique in of 49.24%
terms and 36.17% compared
of performance to
and confirm
the
its DTC and FDTC techniques, respectively.
effectiveness.

4.2. Dynamic Performance of the Battery for DTC, FDTC and MPDTC
The voltage, current, state of charge of the Li-ion battery, and the distance covered
during the operating time under the NYCC driving cycle for the DTC, FDTC, and MPDTC
strategies are shown in Figure 21a–c, Figures 22a–c and 23a–c, respectively. The Li-ion
battery voltage varies between 279.5 V and 256.5 V for the DTC technique (Figure 21a)
between 279 V and 257.2 V for the FDTC technique (Figure 22a), and between 278 V and
258.5 V for the MPDTC technique (Figure 23a). MPDTC reduces the voltage deviation by
15.22% compared to the DTC and 10.55% compared to the FDTC. The Li-ion battery current
oscillates between −76 A and 103 A for DTC (Figure 21b), between −72 A and 98 A for
FDTC (Figure 22b), and between −66 A and 90 A for the MPDTC strategy (Figure 23b).
The MPDTC reduces the current deflection by 24.27% and 8.24% compared to the DTC
and FDTC techniques, respectively. The trajectory of the Li-ion battery SOC with NYCC
cycle driving distance is recorded with an initial SOC of 90%. At the end of the driving
cycle, the vehicle has covered 1.89 km and the final Li-ion battery SOC values are 88.056%,
88.138%, and 88.293% for the DTC, FDTC, and MPDTC techniques, respectively. According
to these results, in one charging cycle, the vehicle can travel approximately 97.22 km with
 (c)
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 20 of 28
Figure 19. The phase current waveform with different techniques (a) DTC; (b) FDTC; (c) MPDTC.

Figure 20a–c shows the fast Fourier transform (FFT) analyses of the phase current
and
the DTCcalculation
the technique,of THDkm
101.50 for with
the three control
the FDTC strategies.
technique, andThe
upstator current
to 110.72 km THD of
with the
MPDTC
MPDTCistechnique.
3.37%, which is lower than that of the classical DTC, which is 6.64%, and that

Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 28

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure
Figure20.
20.FFT
FFTanalyses
analysesofofphase
phasecurrent
currentwith
withdifferent
differenttechniques
techniques(a)
(a)DTC;
DTC;(b)
(b)FDTC;
FDTC;(c)
(c)MPDTC.
MPDTC.

The simulation results presented in Table 7 demonstrate that the MPDTC control
Table 7. Performances of the different control techniques in terms of torque ripples, flux ripples,
technique has effectively reduced the flux and torque ripples, as well as the THD of the
speed ripples and THD.
PMSM current, when compared to the DTC and FDTC techniques. These results reinforce
the superiority of the MPDTC technique in terms
Improvement (%)ofMPDTC
performance and confirm
Improvement its effec-
(%) MPDTC
Performances DTC FDTC MPDTC
tiveness. Compared to FDTC Compared to DTC
Torque ripples (N.m) 2.40 1.90 0.65 65.78 72.92
Table 7. Performances of the different control techniques in terms of torque ripples, flux ripples,
Flux ripples (Wb) 0.004 0.002
speed ripples and THD. 0.001 50 75.00
Speed ripples (km/h) 0.00022 0.00011 0.00005 50.54 77.27
Improvement (%) MPDTC Improvement (%) MPDTC
Performances
THD (%) DTC 6.64FDTC 5.28
MPDTC 3.37 36.17 49.24
Compared to FDTC Compared to DTC
Torque ripples (N.m) 2.40 1.90 0.65 65.78 72.92
Flux ripples (Wb) 0.004 0.002 0.001 50 75.00
Speed ripples (km/h) 0.00022 0.00011 0.00005 50.54 77.27
THD (%) 6.64 5.28 3.37 36.17 49.24

4.2. Dynamic Performance of the Battery for DTC, FDTC and MPDTC
 driving
FDTC distance isrespectively.
techniques, recorded with
The an initial SOC
trajectory of theofLi-ion
90%. battery
At the end
SOCof theNYCC
with driving cycle,
cycle
driving distance
the vehicle is recorded
has covered 1.89with
kman initial
and the SOC
final of 90%. battery
Li-ion At the end
SOCof values
the driving cycle,
are 88.056%,
the vehicle
88.138%, andhas coveredfor1.89
88.293% thekm
DTC,and the final
FDTC, and Li-ion
MPDTC battery SOC values
techniques, are 88.056%,
respectively. Accord-
88.138%, andresults,
ing to these 88.293%infor thecharging
one DTC, FDTC,
cycle,and
theMPDTC
vehicle techniques, respectively. Accord-
can travel approximately 97.22 km
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 ing
withtothe
these
DTCresults, in one101.50
technique, charging
kmcycle,
with the
the vehicle can travel approximately
FDTC technique, 97.22
and up to 110.72 km21km
ofwith
28
with the DTCtechnique.
the MPDTC technique, 101.50 km with the FDTC technique, and up to 110.72 km with
the MPDTC technique.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
(c)
Figure
Figure 21.
Figure21. Li-ion
21.Li-ion battery
Li-ionbattery performance
batteryperformance with
performancewith DTCtechnique
withDTC
DTC technique
(a)
technique (a) voltage;
voltage;
(a) (b)
voltage; (b) current;
current;
(b) (c)
(c)(c)
current; state
state ofcharge,
charge,
ofofcharge,
state
and
and covered
covered distance.
distance.
and covered distance.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 22. Cont.
Energies 2023,
Energies 16,16,
2023, x FOR
3116PEER REVIEW 2222 of 28
of 28
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 28

(c)
(c)
Figure
Figure22.
22.Li-ion
22. Li-ion battery
Li-ionbattery performance
batteryperformance
performance with
with
with FDTC
FDTC
FDTC technique
technique
technique (a)voltage;
(a) voltage;
(a) voltage; (b)(b) current;
current;
(b) current; (c)of(c)
(c) state state
state of of
charge,
charge, and
charge, and covered
covered
and covered distance.distance.
distance.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)
(c)
Figure 23. Li-ion battery performance with MPDTC technique (a) voltage; (b) current; (c) state of
Figure 23. Li-ion battery performance with MPDTC technique (a) voltage; (b) current; (c) state of
charge23.
Figure and covered
Li-ion distance.
battery performance with MPDTC technique (a) voltage; (b) current; (c) state of
charge and covered distance.
charge and covered distance.
5. Real-Time Platform Using RT-LAB RT-LAB
5. Real-Time
To Platform
To validate
validate Using RT-LAB
effectiveness
the effectiveness of proposed control algorithms, a series of experimental
testsTowere conducted on a real-time simulator RT
validate the effectiveness of proposed Lab. algorithms,
control The MPDTCacontrol technique,
series of as
experimental
well as
as other
other studied
studied techniques,
techniques, were
were executed.
executed. The The system
system parameters
parameters
tests were conducted on a real-time simulator RT Lab. The MPDTC control technique, as were were
kept kept
the the
same
same
as
well asasother
those those used
in theinnumerical
usedstudied the numerical
techniques, simulation
simulation
were carried
carried
executed. out out
Thewith with Matlab/Simulink.
Matlab/Simulink.
system parameters Figure
Figure
were kept24the
24 illustrates
illustrates thethe real-time
real-time simulation
simulation benchinstalled
bench installedatatthe
theLTII
LTIIlaboratory,
laboratory, University
University of
same as those used in the numerical simulation carried out with Matlab/Simulink. Figure
Bejaia, Algeria. It is composed of a host PC, a real-time digital simulator OP5700, an HIL
24 illustrates the real-time simulation bench installed at the LTII laboratory, University of
controller,
controller, an
an OP8660
OP8660 datadata acquisition
acquisition interface,
interface, and
and aa digital
digital oscilloscope.
oscilloscope.
Bejaia, Algeria. It is composed of a host PC, a real-time digital simulator OP5700, an HIL
controller, an OP8660 data acquisition interface, and a digital oscilloscope.
x FOR PEER REVIEW
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 23 of 28 23 of 28

Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 28

Figure 24. RT Lab real-time simulator

Figure 24. work bench.
RT Lab real-time simulator work bench.
Figure 24. RT Lab real-time simulator work bench.

Performance analysisPerformance analysis of

of conventional conventional
DTC, FDTC, and DTC, FDTC, and
MPDTC MPDTC
control control strategies
strategies
was Performance
carried out in analysis
the form of
ofconventional
a comparative DTC, FDTC, and
evaluation. TheMPDTC
figures control
present strategies
the results
was carried out in the
wasform
carriedofout
a comparative
in the form ofevaluation.
a comparative The figures The
evaluation. present thepresent
figures resultsthe results
obtained for different operating tests, including steady-state behavior, low-speed operation,
obtained for different operating
obtained tests, including
for different steady-state
operating tests, includingbehavior,
steady-statelow-speed opera- opera-
behavior, low-speed
and torque response to load application.
tion, and torque response
tion, andto load application.
torque response to load application.
Figure 25a–c shows the steady-state behavior of the three control techniques at a speed
Figure 25a–c of
shows Figure
the 25a–c shows the
steady-state steady-state
behavior of thebehavior
threeinof the three control techniques
control at a
1000 rpm and a load of 100 N·m. The zoomed sections techniques
on the figures atshow
a the flux
speed of 1000 rpm andspeed
and of 1000
a load of rpm and
100 The
N·m. a load
Theof 100 N·m. The zoomed
zoomed oninthe
sections on the figures show the
torque ripples. results show thatinallsections
three control figures
techniques show
allow the
for good speed
flux and torque ripples. The results show that all three control techniques allow for good
flux and torque ripples. TheHowever,
tracking. results show that all
significant threeand
torque control techniques
flux ripples, as wellallow for good
as current harmonics, are
speed tracking. However, significant torque and flux ripples, as well as current harmonics,
speed tracking. However,
observed significant
under
are observed under torque
the and flux DTC
conventional
the conventional
DTCripples,
control as well
control as current
technique.
technique. On theharmonics,
On the other hand,
other hand, MPDTC
MPDTC
are observed underpresents
presents better
bettercurrent
the conventional current quality,
DTC with
control
quality, less torque
torqueand
withtechnique.
less andflux
On fluxripples
the ripples
other than
hand,
than the
theMPDTCother
other techniques.
techniques.
presents better current quality, with less torque and flux ripples than the other techniques.

(a)

Figure 25. Cont.

(a)
Energies 2023,
Energies 16, 16,
2023, 3116x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of2428
of 28
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 28

(b)
(b)

(c)
(c)
Figure25.
25. Steady-stateanalysis
analysis with different
differenttechniques
techniques(a)
(a)DTC;
DTC;(b)
(b)FDTC; (c)(c)
MPDTC.
Figure 25.Steady-state
Figure Steady-state analysis with
with different techniques (a) DTC; (b) FDTC;
FDTC; MPDTC.
(c) MPDTC.
Figure26a–c
Figure 26a–c compares
compares the performance
performancewhen whenoperating
operatingconditions
conditions areare
a speed
a speed of of
Figure 26a–c compares the performance when operating conditions are a speed of
200rpm
200 rpmandandaatorque
torqueofof 50
50 NN·m.
· m. In
In Figure
Figure 26a,
26a,ititcan
can bebeobserved
observed that thethe
that DTC
DTC technique
technique
200 rpm and a torque of 50 N·m. In Figure 26a, it can be observed that the DTC technique
presentssignificant
presents significant fluctuations in in torque
torqueandandflux,
flux,as aswell
wellas current
currentharmonics. At At
low
presents significantfluctuations
fluctuations in torque and flux, as well asascurrent harmonics.
harmonics. At lowlow
speed,
speed, this technique can cause rapid variations in torque and flux, which can be difficult
speed,this
thistechnique
techniquecancan cause rapid variations
cause rapid variationsinintorque
torqueandandflux,
flux, which
which cancan
be be difficult
difficult
toto preciselycontrol,
precisely control, resulting
resulting in
in machine
machine instability
instability and
and decreased
decreased torque
to precisely control, resulting in machine instability and decreased torque performance.torqueperformance.
performance.
OnOnthe
the other hand,
hand,thetheFDTC and MPDTC techniques showshow
good performance in the low-
On theother
other hand, the FDTC
FDTC and
and MPDTC
MPDTC techniques
techniques show good good performance
performance in the
in the low-
speed
low-speedregion. The
region. results
The in Figure
results in 26b,c
Figure shows
26b,c that
shows these
thattechniques
these present
techniques a more
present stable
a more
speed region. The results in Figure 26b,c shows that these techniques present a more stable
and precise
stable and control
precise performance
control at low at
performance speed
low than
speed thethan
DTCthetechnique.
DTC technique.
and precise control performance at low speed than the DTC technique.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

Figure 26. Cont.

Energies 2023, 16,
Energies 2023, 16, 3116
x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of
25 of 28
28
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 28

(c)
(c)
Figure26.
Figure 26.Steady-state
Steady-state analysis
analysis atat low
low speed
speedwith different techniques (a) (a)
DTC; (b) (b)
FDTC; (c) (c)
Figure 26. Steady-state analysis at low speed withwith different
different techniques
techniques (a) DTC; DTC;
(b) FDTC; (c)FDTC;
MPDTC.
MPDTC.
MPDTC.
The performance of the three strategies was evaluated when the torque reference step
Theperformance
The performance of the the three strategies was
wasevaluated when thethe
torque reference stepstep
changes from 30 to 100of Nm, as three strategies
illustrated in Figureevaluated
27a–c. Thewhen
results torque reference
show that the torque
changes
changesits from
from 30 to 100
30 to 100 Nm, as
Nm, asforillustrated
illustrated in Figure 27a–c. The results show that the torque
follows reference trajectory all threein Figurestrategies,
control 27a–c. The results
with almostshow that the
similar torque
responses.
follows
follows its reference
its reference trajectory
trajectory for all
forbyall three control strategies, with almost similar re- re-
This observation can be explained thethree control
use of the samestrategies, with almost
fuzzy controller similar
for the external
sponses. This observation can be explained by the use of the same fuzzy controller for the
sponses.
speed loopThis observation
in all can be explained
control strategies. by the
The settling timeusefor
ofDTC
the same fuzzy is
and FDTC controller for the
approximately
external speed loop in all control strategies. The settling time for DTC and FDTC is ap-
external
0.155 s, speed
and it isloop in all control
approximately strategies.
0.145 s for The settling time for DTC and FDTC is ap-
MPDTC.
proximately 0.155 s, and it is approximately 0.145 s for MPDTC.
proximately 0.155 s, and it is approximately 0.145 s for MPDTC.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 27. Results of load variation tests with different techniques (a) DTC; (b) FDTC; (c) MPDTC.
(c)
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 26 of 28

In summary, the tests conducted in this section demonstrate that the MPDTC control
technique significantly reduces torque and flux ripples and improves the quality of the
current. Additionally, this method offers a faster dynamic response. The results obtained
using a real-time discrete-simulator RT LAB prove the superiority of the MPDTC technique
over conventional DTC and FDTC techniques.

6. Conclusions
This research work presents a detailed analysis and comparative study of three control
torque structures for a permanent magnet synchronous motor in electric vehicles. These
control strategies are the DTC, FDTC, and MPTDC, all of which were designed and de-
veloped to meet the requirements of the vehicle. The simulation results were validated
through numerical simulation using MATLAB/Simulink and real-time simulation using
the RT LAB simulator. The obtained results show that the MPTDC is the most effective
control strategy for controlling the PMSM in an electric vehicle. This strategy reduced
torque and flux ripples, decreased the total harmonic distortion of the PMSM current, and
provided a faster transient response compared to the DTC and FDTC techniques. Addi-
tionally, the MPTDC technique enabled the electric vehicle to cover the longest distance
of about 110.72 km in a charging cycle. Therefore, the MPTDC technique is a powerful
candidate for PMSM control in electric vehicles.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.K. and T.R.; methodology, K.K., A.O., S.M. and T.R.;
software, K.K.; validation, K.K., A.O. and T.R.; formal analysis, K.K., A.O., S.M., D.R. and T.R.;
investigation, K.K., A.O., S.M., D.R. and T.R.; resources, K.K. and T.R.; data curation, K.K., A.O.,
S.M., D.R. and T.R.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.; writing—review and editing, K.K.,
A.O., S.M., D.R. and T.R.; visualization, K.K., S.M. and T.R.; supervision, S.M. and T.R.; project
administration, T.R.; funding acquisition, T.R. and S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Pamuła, T.; Pamuła, W. Estimation of the Energy Consumption of Battery Electric Buses for Public Transport Networks Using
Real-World Data and Deep Learning. Energies 2020, 13, 2340. [CrossRef]
2. Andwari, A.M.; Pesiridis, A.; Rajoo, S.; Martinez-Botas, R.; Esfahanian, V. A Review of Battery Electric Vehicle Technology and
Readiness Levels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 414–430. [CrossRef]
3. Makrygiorgou, J.J.; Alexandridis, A.T. Power Electronic Control Design for Stable EV Motor and Battery Operation during a
Route. Energies 2019, 12, 1990. [CrossRef]
4. Pellegrino, G.; Vagati, A.; Boazzo, B.; Guglielmi, P. Comparison of Induction and PM Synchronous Motor Drives for EV
Application Including Design Examples. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2012, 48, 2322–2332. [CrossRef]
5. Mokrani, Z.; Rekioua, D.; Mebarki, N.; Rekioua, T.; Bacha, S. Proposed energy management strategy in electric vehicle for
recovering power excess produced by fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2017, 42, 19556–19575. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, Z.; Ge, X.; Tian, Z.; Zhang, X.; Tang, Q.; Feng, X. A PWM for Minimum Current Harmonic Distortion in Metro Traction
PMSM with Saliency Ratio and Load Angle Constrains. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2017, 33, 4498–4511. [CrossRef]
7. Li, G.; Hu, J.; Li, Y.; Zhu, J. An Improved Model Predictive Direct Torque Control Strategy for Reducing Harmonic Currents and
Torque Ripples of Five-Phase Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 66, 5820–5829. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, Z.; Chen, J.; Cheng, M.; Chau, K.T. Field-Oriented Control and Direct Torque Control for Paralleled VSIs Fed PMSM Drives
with Variable Switching Frequencies. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2015, 31, 2417–2428. [CrossRef]
9. Emanuele, G.; Marco, P.; Fabio, C.; Matthias, N.; Francesco, C.; Francesco, G. Detection of Stator Turns Short-Circuit During
Sensorless Operation by Means of the Direct Flux Control Technique. In Proceedings of the 2020 AEIT International Annual
Conference (AEIT), Catania, Italy, 23–25 September 2020; pp. 1–6.
10. Abdelli, R.; Rekioua, D.; Rekioua, T. Performances Improvements and Torque Ripple Minimization for VSI Fed Induction Machine
with Direct Control Torque. ISA Trans. 2011, 50, 213–219. [CrossRef]
11. Tazerart, F.; Mokrani, Z.; Rekioua, D.; Rekioua, T. Direct Torque Control Implementation with Losses Minimization of Induction
Motor for Electric Vehicle Applications with High Operating Life of the Battery. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2015, 40, 13827–13838.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 27 of 28

12. De Klerk, M.L.; Saha, A.K. Performance Analysis of DTC-SVM in a Complete Traction Motor Control Mechanism for a Battery
Electric Vehicle. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09265. [CrossRef]
13. Ammar, A.; Benakcha, A.; Bourek, A. Closed Loop Torque SVM-DTC Based on Robust Super Twisting Speed Controller for
Induction Motor Drive with Efficiency Optimization. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2017, 42, 17940–17952. [CrossRef]
14. Tarusan, S.A.A.; Jidin, A.; Jamil, M.L.M. The optimization of torque ripple reduction by using DTC-multilevel inverter. ISA Trans.
2022, 121, 365–379. [CrossRef]
15. Oubelaid, A.; Taib, N.; Nikolovski, S.; Alharbi, T.E.A.; Rekioua, T.; Flah, A.; Ghoneim, S.S.M. Intelligent Speed Control and
Performance Investigation of a Vector Controlled Electric Vehicle Considering Driving Cycles. Electronics 2022, 11, 1925. [CrossRef]
16. Oubelaid, A.; Alharbi, H.; Humayd, A.S.B.; Taib, N.; Rekioua, T.; Ghoneim, S.S.M. Fuzzy-Energy-Management-Based Intelligent
Direct Torque Control for a Battery—Supercapacitor Electric Vehicle. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8407. [CrossRef]
17. Kakouche, K.; Guendouz, W.; Rekioua, T.; Mezani, S.; Lubin, T. Application of fuzzy controller to minimize torque and flux
ripples of PMSM. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Electrical Engineering (ICAEE), Algiers, Algeria,
19–21 November 2019. [CrossRef]
18. Singh, B.; Jain, P.; Mittal, A.P.; Gupta, J.R.P. Torque Ripples Minimization of DTC IPMSM Drive for the EV Propulsion System
Using a Neural Network. J. Power Electron. 2008, 8, 23–34.
19. Nouria, N.; Abdelkader, G.B.G.; Cherif, B. Improved DTC Strategy of an Electric Vehicle with Four In-Wheels Induction Motor
Drive 4WDEV Using Fuzzy Logic Control. Int. J. Power Electron. Drive Syst. 2021, 12, 650. [CrossRef]
20. Ahmed, A.; Akl, M.; Rashad, E.E. A Comparative Dynamic Analysis between Model Predictive Torque Control and Field-Oriented
Torque Control of IM Drives for Electric Vehicles. Int. Trans. Electr. Energ. Syst. 2021, 31, e13089. [CrossRef]
21. Kumar, V.P.K.; Kumar, T.V. Enhanced Direct Torque Control and Predictive Torque Control Strategies of an Open-End Winding
Induction Motor Drive to Eliminate Common-Mode Voltage and Weighting Factors. IET Power Electron. 2019, 12, 1986–1997.
[CrossRef]
22. Djerioui, A.; Houari, A.; Machmoum, M.; Ghanes, M. Grey Wolf Optimizer-Based Predictive Torque Control for Electric Buses
Applications. Energies 2020, 13, 5013. [CrossRef]
23. Kakouche, K.; Rekioua, T.; Mezani, S.; Oubelaid, A.; Rekioua, D.; Blazek, V.; Prokop, L.; Misak, S.; Bajaj, M.; Ghoneim, S.S.M.
Model Predictive Direct Torque Control and Fuzzy Logic Energy Management for Multi Power Source Electric Vehicles. Sensors
2022, 22, 5669. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Bouguenna, I.F.; Tahour, A.; Kennel, R.; Abdelrahem, M. Multiple-Vector Model Predictive Control with Fuzzy Logic for PMSM
Electric Drive Systems. Energies 2021, 14, 1727. [CrossRef]
25. Vafaie, M.; Dehkordi, B.; Moallem, P.; Kiyoumarsi, A. Minimizing Torque and Flux Ripples and Improving Dynamic Response of
PMSM using a Voltage Vector with Optimal Parameters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 63, 3876–3888. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, K.; Fan, M.; Yang, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Garcia, C.; Rodriguez, J. Field Enhancing Model Predictive Direct Torque Control of
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2021, 36, 2924–2933. [CrossRef]
27. Navardi, M.J.; Milimonfared, J.; Talebi, H.A. Torque and Flux Ripples Minimization of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor by
a Predictive-Based Hybrid Direct Torque Control. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2018, 6, 1662–1670. [CrossRef]
28. Toso, F.; De Soricellis, M.; Bolognani, S. Simple and Robust Model Predictive Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors
with Moving Horizon Estimator for Disturbance Compensation. J. Eng. 2019, 17, 4380–4385. [CrossRef]
29. Alsofyani, I.; Lee, K. Three-level inverter-fed model predictive torque control of a permanent magnet synchronous motor with
discrete space vector modulation and simplified neutral point voltage balancing. J. Power Electron. 2022, 22, 22–30. [CrossRef]
30. Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Xie, W.; Wang, F.; Dou, M.; Kennel, R.M.; Gerling, D. Deadbeat Model-Predictive Torque Control with Discrete
Space-Vector Modulation for PMSM Drives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 3537–3547. [CrossRef]
31. Zhu, H.; Xiao, X.; Li, Y. Torque Ripple Reduction in the Torque Predictive Control Scheme for Permanent-Magnet Synchronous
Motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 871–877. [CrossRef]
32. Oubelaid, A.; Taib, N.; Rekioua, T.; Bajaj, M.; Yadav, A.; Shouran, M.; Kamel, S. Secure Power Management Strategy for Direct
Torque Controlled Fuel Cell/Supercapacitor Electric Vehicles. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 971357. [CrossRef]
33. Mebarki, N.; Rekioua, T.; Mokrani, Z.; Rekioua, D.; Bacha, S. PEM Fuel Cell/Battery Storage System Supplying Electric Vehicle.
Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2016, 41, 20993–21005. [CrossRef]
34. Mamdouh, M.; Abido, M.A. Efficient Predictive Torque Control for Induction Motor Drive. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2019,
66, 6757–6767. [CrossRef]
35. Kamel, O.; Mohand, O.; Toufik, R.; Taib, N. Nonlinear predictive control of wind energy conversion system using DFIG with
aerodynamic torque observer. J. Electr. Eng. 2015, 65, 333–341. [CrossRef]
36. Sandre-Hernandez, O.; Rangel-Magdaleno, J.; Morales-Caporal, R. A Comparison on Finite-Set Model Predictive Torque Control
Schemes for PMSMs. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2018, 33, 8838–8847. [CrossRef]
37. Motapon, S.N.; Dessaint, L.A.; Al-Haddad, K. A comparative study of energy management schemes for a fuel-cell hybrid
emergency power system of more-electric aircraft. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013, 61, 1320–1334. [CrossRef]
38. Rekioua, T.; Rekioua, D. Direct Torque Control Strategy of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machines. In Proceedings of the
2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference Proceedings, Bologna, Italy, 23–26 June 2003; Volume 2, p. 6.
39. Metidji, B.; Taib, N.; Baghli, L.; Rekioua, T.; Bacha, S. Low-cost direct torque control algorithm for induction motor without AC
phase current sensors. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2012, 27, 4132–4139. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3116 28 of 28

40. Sudheer, H.; Kodad, S.F.; Sarvesh, B. Improvements in Direct Torque Control of Induction Motor for Wide Range of Speed
Operation Using Fuzzy Logic. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2018, 5, 813–828. [CrossRef]
41. Sahri, Y.; Tamalouzt, S.; Lalouni Belaid, S.; Bacha, S.; Ullah, N.; Ahamdi, A.A.A.; Alzaed, A.N. Advanced Fuzzy 12 DTC Control
of Doubly Fed Induction Generator for Optimal Power Extraction in Wind Turbine System under Random Wind Conditions.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11593. [CrossRef]
42. Ban, F.; Lian, G.; Zhang, J.; Chen, B.; Gu, G. Study on a Novel Predictive Torque Control Strategy Based on the Finite Control Set
for PMSM. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2019, 29, 3601206. [CrossRef]
43. Elyazid, A.; Yanis, H.; Koussaila, I.; Kaci, G.; Djamal, A.; Azeddine, H. New Fuzzy Speed Controller for Dual Star Permanent
Magnet Synchronous Motor. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 1st International Maghreb Meeting of the Conference on Sciences
and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering MI-STA, Tripoli, Libya, 25–27 May 2021; pp. 69–73. [CrossRef]
44. Lallouani, H.; Saad, B.; Letfi, B. DTC-SVM Based on Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller of Double Stator Induction Machine
Fed by Six-Phase Inverter. Int. J. Image Graph. Signal Process. 2019, 11, 48–57. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.