Predictive Control of Five-leg Inverter Driving Dual

PMSMs for Overcurrent Suppression

2023 IEEE 6th Student Conference on Electric Machines and Systems (SCEMS) | 979-8-3503-2934-6/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/SCEMS60579.2023.10379328

Yong Chen1 Zhiping Dong1 Zaixin Song2 Chunhua Liu*1

1. School of Energy and
Environment
City University of HongKong
HongKong SAR, China
yong.chen@my.cityu.edu.hk
1. School of Energy and
Environment
City University of HongKong
HongKong SAR, China
zhiping.dong@my.cityu.edu.hk
2. State Key Laboratory of Ultra- 1. School of Energy and
precision Machining Technology, Environment
Department of Industrial and City University of HongKong
Systems Engineering HongKong SAR, China
Hong Kong Polytechnic *Correspondence:
University chunliu@cityu.edu.hk
Hong Kong ASR, China
zaixin.song@polyu.edu.hk

Abstract—The five-leg inverter has been investigated widely
as a low-cost solution for dual permanent magnet synchronous
motors (PMSMs) drives. For this topology, the overcurrent issue
of the shared leg should be carefully considered. In the paper, a
novel model predictive control (MPC) scheme is presented to
realize independent dual-PMSMs control, effective overcurrent
elimination, and fast transient response simultaneously. A
classical duty cycle partitioning scheme is adopted to decouple
the association of each motor drive. The overcurrent component
is contained in the cost function design directly. Moreover, a
master-slave structure is utilized to coordinate the current
phase angle relationship and keep dual PMSMs running
synchronously. Finally, a simulation of three-PMSMs system is
executed, and the obtained results substantiate the effectiveness
and superiority of the proposed algorithm.
Keywords—Dual motors, five-leg inverter, model predictive
control, overcurrent suppression.
I. INTRODUCTION
Dual-motor systems possess higher power output,
stronger robustness, and control flexibility, thus have been
comprehensively utilized in a large number of industrial
applications [1], [2], [3], [4]. In [5], the two series-connected
multiphase motor drives are discussed with the phase
transposition. In [6], a two-rotor axial-flux machine is
designed to realize equivalent function of dual motors for
underwater propulsion system. In [7], a overmodulation
strategy for torque balance considering angle offset is
introduced for dual permanent magnet synchronous motors
(PMSMs) systems. Besides, the dual-PMSMs five-leg
voltage source inverter (FL-VSI) drive is a classical topology
for system cost reduction and fault-tolerant solutions [8], [9],
[10]. Compared to other topologies, such as four-leg VSI and
three-leg dual parallel drive topology, it retains a larger
degree of freedom of control and is especially applicable to
non-rigidly connected dual-motor systems [11], [12].
In decades, many control strategies have been put forward
to realize dual motors drives independently under FL-VSI,
such as hysteresis current control, field-oriented control with
PI controller, and model predictive control (MPC) [13], [14].
In [13], a simple dual-level hysteresis current control strategy
is utilized to control a dual-PMSM system without any motor
parameters. In [15], a current reconstruction method is
introduced to further reduce volume and enhance robustness
of the system via a single current sensor. In [16], a direct
torque control derived from conventional three-phase drive is
introduced with fast torque response. Besides, the pulse width
modulation (PWM) method for FL-VSI is further extended to
multiple motor control for higher power requirement [17].
Among all methods, since the MPC-based strategies
possess the merits of simple structure, flexible cost function,
and fast dynamic response, they have received more and more
attention. For example, Lim et al. propose several MPC-
based methods and conduct a comparative study [18], [19].
The traditional method considering dual-motor control into
an integrated cost function yields large computational burden.
To this end, the traverse process of candidate vectors should
be optimized. A classical solution is to separate the control
cycle into two intervals according to voltage demands, and
one per motor [20]. In each interval, only seven basic voltage
vectors (VVs) should be tested. However, the ability of
providing active VVs to dual motor simultaneously are less
investigated.
Moreover, MPC schemes have been utilized with various
cost functions considering voltage constraint, flux and torque
demands, switching frequency reduction, and overcurrent
protection of phase current [21], [22], [23], while the issue of
overcurrent suppression in the common leg has not been
included. Actually, different from the traditional overcurrent
protection mechanism, the current flows into common leg
may be twice large as other legs. In addition, though the angle
controller enables phase angle regulation to minimize the
current [24], [25], the current response is still slow due to the
cascaded control structure.
Therefore, this article proposes a novel MPC scheme
incorporating the suppression of common-leg overcurrent
into the cost function. To simplify control complexity, the
duty cycle partitioning principle is adopted to achieve the
decoupling drive of dual motors. Furthermore, the angle of
slave motor is given from the master motor under the same
speed. To this end, the cooperative control of motor speed and
current phase angle are achieved meantime. And finally, the
simulation verification and comparisons are carried out to
prove the availability and superiority.

979-8-3503-2934-6/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 13,2024 at 06:47:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 II. SYSTEM MODELING 1* + iq*1 SL1
PI is1 1
The structure of FL-VSI driving dual-PMSM system is i*
Cost Function SL2
1- 0
d1
Optimization
shown in Fig. 1. The L5 is common leg that connects phase c id 1 , iq1
Five-leg
Inverter M1
of dual PMSMs together, and phases a and b can be controlled
Current phase angle SL5
freely. We can see that the current flowing in L5 is twice higher is 2 2
than that in other legs, which demands more strict 2* + iq*2
PI
requirements to switch specification and protective circuit. - id* 2 Cost Function SL3
Besides, as phases a and b of dual motors are supplied from 2 0 Optimization SL4 M2
id 2 , iq 2
separate inverter legs, they can be control as traditional full-
switch topology. However, owing to the coupled leg topology, Fig. 2. Block diagram of proposed MPC scheme.
the control signals to IGBTs of common leg should be
adjusted optimally to realize better performance of dual In the first step, a duty cycle scheme based on deadbeat
theory is adopted to decouple the relationship of dual-PMSM
PMSMs simultaneously.
control [24]. The duty ratio of each motor can be given as
+ a1
 u *j 2 2
3U dc
,  0 = 1 −   j ，  u *j 
b1
L1 c1
M1  j =
L2 L3 L4 L5
 3U dc 3 j =1 j =1 3

Vdc  u *j 2 (4)
3U dc
a2  j = 2 ，  u *j 
 3
b2
c2
M2
  u *j j =1

-  j =1

As a result, the output vector of each motor can be offered

Fig. 1. Structure of FL-VSI driving dual-PMSM system.
In addition, the voltage models in the d/q-axis
synchronous frame are
ud   Rs −e Lq  id   Ld 0  d id   0 
u  =  L  i  +  0 L  i  +    (1)
 q   e d Rs  q  q  dt  q   e f
where Ld, Lq, ud, uq, id, iq are inductances, stator voltages, and
stator currents of d/q-axis, respectively; ωe is the electric
angular velocity, Rs represents the stator resistance, ψf is the
permanent magnet flux linkage.
Based on (1) and applying the discretization method, the
current prediction expressions are derived as follows:
id (k + 1) = (1 − RsTs / Ld )id (k ) + (Ts / Ld )ud (k )
(2)
+ ( Lqe (k )Ts / Ld )iq (k )
iq (k + 1) = (1 − RsTs / Lq )iq (k ) + (Ts / Lq )uq (k )
(3)
+ (− Ld e (k )Ts / Lq )id (k ) + −Tse (k ) f / Lq
where (k) and (k+1) are the current and the next instants, and
Ts is the sampling interval of current. Based on the classical
predictive theory, the candidate voltage can be traversed to
select best one to minimizes the specific cost function, such
as current tracking error minimization.
III. PROPOSED PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR DUAL PMSMS
The specific MPC for dual PMSMs drives is derived from
the classical approach, but it attaches the consideration of
common leg limitation and overcurrent suppression. The
whole algorithm is shown in Fig. 2. The proposed predictive
control strategy is a master-slave control scheme with a novel
cost function that includes the overcurrent term, and by
adjusting the current loop, achieving the same function as the
position loop angle controller, but providing faster transient
response.
independently. The optimal vector of the master motor is
determined by using a classical cost function considering the
deviation of d/q-axis currents as
g = (id* − id (k + 2))2 + (iq* − iq (k + 2))2 (5)
where (k+2) step has considered the one-step delay.
Then, on the basis of the predictive current from the
selected voltage vector, the current is transformed to α-β axis
as
i 1 (k + 2) = id 1 (k + 2) * cos  e1 − iq1 ( k + 2) *sin  e1

(6)

i 1 (k + 2) = id 1 (k + 2) *sin  e1 + iq1 (k + 2) * cos  e1

where θe1 is the electric angular position of master motor, iα1,
iβ1, id1, iq1 are predictive currents of master motor in α/β and
d/q -axis.
Next, given the phase angle difference of the two motor
currents, the angle of the slave motor is obtained by adding
the optimal angle deviation to the phase angle of the master
motor. When dual motors work at the identical speeds, the
phase angle difference of phase c currents is expected as the
difference of electric angular position as 180°. Therefore, the
reference current of the slave motor can be calculated as
* 2
 i 2 = − is*2 * i 1 (k + 2) (i 1 (k + 2)) 2 + (i 1 (k + 2)) 2
 3
 (7)
i* = − 2 i* * i (k + 1) (i (k + 2)) 2 + (i (k + 2)) 2
2 1 1 1

 3
s2
where is2* is the reference current of slave motor. If id=0
control scheme is utilized, the is2* can be regarded as iq2*.
Thus, the reference current of the slave motor considering
overcurrent suppression is calculated. Finally, the basic
voltage vector is substituted into the operation to filter out the
optimal vector of the slave motor. The specific cost function
is given as
g = (i* 2 − i 2 (k + 2))2 + (i* 2 − i 2 (k + 2))2 (8)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 13,2024 at 06:47:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The flowchart of the proposed predictive control scheme TABLE II
MAIN PARAMETERS OF PMSMS
is shown in Fig. 3.
Symbol Quantity Value
Start
p Number of pole pairs 5

Rs (Ω) Stator resistance 0.9

Obtain reference currents in d/q-
axis of dual-motor Ld (mH) Inductance in d-axis 3.7

Lq (mH) Inductance in q-axis 5

Predict reference voltages and
ѱf (Wb) Magnet flux linkage 0.055
calculate duty cycles (4)
J (kg∙m2) Rotational inertia 5x10-5

Optimal VVs selection of nN (r/min) Rated speed 1000

master motor (5)
TN (N∙m) Rated torque 2

Calculate reference current of slave Time [100 ms/div]

motor in (6)-(7) 450
M1 M2

Speed[r/min]
400
Cost minimization of slave 350
motor (8) 300
250
Synthesize switching commands
2 M1 M2
of FL-VSI
Current [A]
Phase-A

0
End
-2

Fig. 3. Flowchart of proposed predictive control. 3

iq1 id1 iq2 id2
Current [A]

2
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
d/q-

1
A three-motor simulation model is built up to empirically
validate the efficacy of the proposed scheme. All motors are 0
of same design, and their main performances are listed in -1
Table II. The classical MPC scheme without overcurrent Fig. 4. Steady-state performance under the proposed scheme.
consideration [19] and the angle control scheme are chosen as
contrasts [26]. Time [100 ms/div]
450
A. Steady-State Performance M1 M2
Speed[r/min]

400
Firstly, the steady-state performance is tested. The steady- 350
state performance under the proposed scheme and the classical 300
MPC scheme is demonstrated in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively.
The dual motors operate steadily at 350 r/min with 0.8 Nm 250
load torque. Besides, the common leg currents of two scheme M1 M2
are shown in Fig. 6. The steady-state performance of speed 2
Current [A]
Phase-A

and d/q axis currents under two strategies are very similar. The
0
main difference of control effects under two schemes is the
current phase difference. It is controlled as 180° at the -2
proposed strategy. The peak value of common leg current
increases to 3.5 A at the conventional scheme, which is almost 3
1.6 times the phase current. On the contrary, the proposed iq1 id1 iq2 id2
Current [A]

2
scheme includes overcurrent elimination into cost function,
d/q-

thus, the common leg current can be minimized to closed to 1

zero, which is beneficial for circuit protection and loss 0
reduction.
-1
Fig. 5. Steady-state performance under the classical MPC scheme [19].

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 13,2024 at 06:47:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Time [100 ms/div] 500
5 M1 M2

Speed[r/min]
Proposed scheme Traditional scheme 400
Common Leg

2.5
Current [A]

300
0 200
-2.5 100
0
-5
3
Fig. 6. Common leg currents of two schemes. M1 M2

Current [A]
1.5

Phase-A
0
B. Transient Performance
-1.5
Next, the transient performance is tested in this subsection.
At 0.2 s, the step-load torques from 0.8 Nm to 0.5 Nm and -3
from 0.2 Nm to 0.5 Nm are applied to dual motor respectively, 4
iq1 id1 iq2 id2
then, the step-speed command from 200 r/min to 300 r/min is

Current [A]
2
given at 0.3 s. From Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, it can be observed that

d/q-
both schemes realize fast dynamic response and torque output, 0
while the classical MPC yields a more stable d-axis current of
slave motor around zero value, which is due to the different -2
considerations of cost function. In the proposed scheme, the 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Time [s]
slave motor follows a reference d-axis current calculated from Fig. 8. Transient performance under the classical MPC scheme [19].
master motor, which may fluctuate and deviate from zero.
Moreover, the common leg currents are presented in Fig. 5 Proposed scheme Traditional scheme
9. The proposed scheme eliminates overcurrent in common

Common Leg
Current [A]
2.5
leg with fast response. When the loads of motors are the same,
0
the current can even be suppressed to zero. Besides, to clearly
compare the control effect of overcurrent, the common leg -2.5
currents at start-up process are shown in Fig. 10. The proposed -5
scheme and angle controller are effective to minimize the 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Time [s]
current flowing in common leg. However, from the zoom in
Fig. 9. Common leg currents of two schemes.
figure, it can be observed that it still exists overcurrent under
the angle controller-based method. On the contrary, this 4
phenomenon is removed under the proposed scheme. The
Common Leg
Current [A]

amplitude of current decreases from 6.3 A to 1.5 A, which 0

500 -4
M1 M2
Speed[r/min]

400 Method 1 Method 2 Method 3

300 -8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
200 Time [s]
100
0 4
Common Leg

3
Current [A]

M1 M2
0
Current [A]

1.5
Phase-A

0 -4
-1.5 Method 1 Method 2 Method 3
-8
-3 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Time [s]
4
iq1 id1 iq2 id2
Fig. 10. Common leg currents at start-up process. Method 1: Proposed
Current [A]

2 scheme. Method 2: Angle control scheme [26]. Method 3: Classical MPC

d/q-

scheme without overcurrent consideration [19].

0

-2 V. CONCLUSION
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Time [s] This paper proposes a novel MPC strategy that realizes
Fig. 7. Transient performance under the proposed scheme.
independent dual-PMSMs control, fast transient response, and
is reduced by 76.2%. In short, the simulation outcomes effective overcurrent elimination simultaneously. A classical
substantiate that the presented MPC method can maintain a duty cycle partitioning scheme is adopted to decouple the
fast dynamic response and reduce the overcurrent of common association of each motor drive. A master-slave structure is
leg significantly. utilized to coordinate the current phase angle relation and keep
dual PMSMs running synchronously. Under the circumstance,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 13,2024 at 06:47:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the overcurrent term of the common leg is inserted in the cost
function. Eventually, the outcomes of the simulation serve to
authenticate the efficacy of the novel approach.
In future work, subsequent investigations will involve
experimental analyses aimed at comparing the performance
of the proposed method with established counterparts in a
comprehensive manner. Besides, more nonlinear restricts
will be considered in cost function design.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by Research Fellow
Scheme (Project No.: RFS2223-1S05) from Research Grants
Council, Hong Kong SAR; in part by a Collaborative
Research Fund (Project No. C1052-21GF) from the Research
Grants Council, Hong Kong SAR; and General Research
Fund (Project No.: 11217623) from Research Grants Council,
Hong Kong SAR. (*Corresponding author: Chunhua Liu.).
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Song, J. Zhao, J. Sun, and Y. Zhou, "Model predictive vector control
for four-switch mono-inverter dual im system," IEEE Transactions on
Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 396-405, 2023, doi:
10.1109/tpel.2022.3206957.
[2] C. Yang, F. Meng, H. Zhang, J. Zhao, H. Wang, and L. Zhou, "Optimal
coordinated control for speed tracking and torque synchronization of
rigidly connected dual-motor systems," IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics, pp. 1-12, 2023, doi: 10.1109/tmech.2023.3242663.
[3] C. Liu, K. T. Chau, C. H. T. Lee, and Z. Song, "A critical review of
advanced electric machines and control strategies for electric vehicles,"
Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 1004-1028, 2021, doi:
10.1109/jproc.2020.3041417.
[4] Y. Chen, Z. Dong, and C. Liu, "Combined cross-coupled and electronic
virtual line shafting control for dual-motor system," presented at the
IECON 2022 – 48th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society.
[5] E. Levi, M. Jones, S. N. Vukosavic, and H. A. Toliyat, "Steady-state
modeling of series-connected five-phase and six-phase two-motor
drives," IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 44, no. 5, pp.
1559-1568, 2008, doi: 10.1109/tia.2008.2002268.
[6] R. Huang, Z. Dong, Z. Song, and C. Liu, "A novel counter-rotating
afpm machine based on magnetic-field modulation for underwater
propulsion system," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol.
71, no. 3, pp. 2167-2176, 2024, doi: 10.1109/tie.2023.3270515.
[7] B. Jung, P. Jang, K. Nam, and Y. Kim, "Overmodulation strategy for
torque balance of dual-motor systems considering angle offset," IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 6869-6878,
2022, doi: 10.1109/tia.2022.3198382.
[8] Y. Chen, C. Liu, S. Liu, and Y. Liu, "Predictive control scheme with
adaptive overmodulation for a five-leg vsi driving dual pmsms," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 71-81, 2024,
doi: 10.1109/tie.2023.3245221.
[9] W. Wang, Y. Liu, Y. Chen, and C. Liu, "Optimization-based duty cycle
allocation for a five-leg inverter to drive two electric motors," IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 11327-11337,
2023, doi: 10.1109/tpel.2023.3287469.
[10] M. Iwashita, Y. Suzuki, K. Matsuse, and K. Rajashekara,
"Characteristics of speed control of two induction motors fed by a five-
leg inverter with space vector modulation," in 2013 IEEE Energy
Conversion Congress and Exposition, 15-19 Sept. 2013, pp. 3749-3756,
doi: 10.1109/ECCE.2013.6647197.
[11] Y. Lee and J.-I. Ha, "Control method for mono inverter dual parallel
surface-mounted permanent-magnet synchronous machine drive
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 13,2024 at 06:47:23 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
system," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 10,
pp. 6096-6107, 2015, doi: 10.1109/tie.2015.2420634.
[12] D. Zhou, J. Zhao, and Y. Liu, "Predictive torque control scheme for
three-phase four-switch inverter-fed induction motor drives with dc-
link voltages offset suppression," IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 3309-3318, 2015, doi:
10.1109/tpel.2014.2338395.
[13] W. Wang, J. Zhang, and M. Cheng, "A dual-level hysteresis current
control for one five-leg vsi to control two pmsms," IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 804-814, 2017, doi:
10.1109/tpel.2016.2535294.
[14] Q. Geng et al., "An improved pwm method of five-leg vsi fed dual-
pmsm system with duty cycles regulation," IEEE/ASME Transactions
on Mechatronics, pp. 1-9, 2022, doi: 10.1109/tmech.2022.3190690.
[15] Q. Geng, J. He, Z. Yu, G. Zhang, and Z. Zhou, "Current reconstruction
for dual pmsms fed by a five-leg voltage source inverter with a single
current sensor," IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 38, no.
1, pp. 479-494, 2023, doi: 10.1109/tec.2022.3208158.
[16] W. Wang, J. Zhang, M. Cheng, and R. Cao, "Direct torque control of
five-leg dual-pmsm drive systems for fault-tolerant purposes," Journal
of Power Electronics, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 161-171, 2017, doi:
10.6113/jpe.2017.17.1.161.
[17] D. Dujic, M. Jones, S. N. Vukosavic, and E. Levi, "A general pwm
method for a (2n + 1) -leg inverter supplying n three-phase machines,"
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 4107-
4118, 2009, doi: 10.1109/tie.2009.2014909.
[18] C. S. Lim, N. A. Rahim, W. P. Hew, and E. Levi, "Model predictive
control of a two-motor drive with five-leg-inverter supply," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 54-65, 2013,
doi: 10.1109/tie.2012.2186770.
[19] C.-S. Lim, E. Levi, M. Jones, N. A. Rahim, and W.-P. Hew, "A
comparative study of synchronous current control schemes based on
fcs-mpc and pi-pwm for a two-motor three-phase drive," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 3867-3878,
2014, doi: 10.1109/tie.2013.2286573.
[20] C.-S. Lim, E. Levi, M. Jones, N. A. Rahim, and W.-P. Hew, "A fault-
tolerant two-motor drive with fcs-mp-based flux and torque control,"
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 6603-
6614, 2014, doi: 10.1109/tie.2014.2317135.
[21] Y. Mei, Z. Yi, and Z. Li, "A model predictive control strategy for dual
induction motor drive system fed by five-leg inverter," in 2014 17th
International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems
(ICEMS), 22-25 Oct. 2014, pp. 2959-2963, doi:
10.1109/ICEMS.2014.7014003.
[22] S. Liu, C. Liu, Y. Huang, and H. Zhao, "Model predictive two-target
current control for ow-pmsm," IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 3224-3235, 2021, doi:
10.1109/tpel.2020.3016714.
[23] Z. Dong, Y. Chen, K. Feng, and C. Liu, "Multivector-based model
predictive current control with zero-sequence current suppression for
three-phase series-end winding permanent magnet synchronous motor
drives," IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, vol. 9,
no. 2, pp. 3282-3294, 2023, doi: 10.1109/tte.2022.3220591.
[24] Y. Chen, C. Liu, H. Wen, and Z. Dong, "Improved model predictive
control for multimotor system using reduced-switch-count vsi with
current minimization," IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol.
38, no. 7, pp. 8786-8797, 2023, doi: 10.1109/tpel.2023.3267116.
[25] Y. Chen, R. Huang, H. Wen, B. Zhang, Z. Song, and C. Liu, "Improved
predictive control for dual motors drives with phase angle regulation,"
presented at the 2023 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on
Industrial Electronics (ISIE).
[26] Y.-S. Lim, J.-S. Lee, and K.-B. Lee, "Advanced speed control for a
five-leg inverter driving a dual-induction motor system," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 707-716,
2019, doi: 10.1109/tie.2018.2831172.