IET Power Electronics

Research Article

Synchronous-frame decoupling current ISSN 1755-4535

Received on 21st February 2019
Revised 1st October 2019
regulators for induction motor control in high- Accepted on 6th November 2019
E-First on 29th November 2019
power drive systems: modelling and design doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222
www.ietdl.org

Daniel Legrand Mon-Nzongo1,2 , Paul Gistain Ipoum-Ngome1, Rodolfo C.C. Flesch3, Joseph Song-
Manguelle4, Tao Jin1, Jinquan Tang2
1ElectricalEngineering and Automation, Fuzhou University, 350116 Fuzhou, People's Republic of China
2PearlElectric Co., Guangdong, Guangzhou 511400, People's Republic of China
3Department of Automation and Systems, Federal University of Santa Catarina, 88040-900, Florianopolis, SC, Brazil
4Université du Québec a Trois Rivières, 14847 Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada

E-mail: monnzongodaniel@yahoo.fr

Abstract: In this study, a decoupling current regulator with a simple design approach aiming to mitigate cross-coupling effects
during torque or speed disturbance is proposed for induction motor (IM) drives that operate at the low switching frequency. The
proposed control method consists to derive a decoupling transfer matrix from the plant accurate model that is inserted at the
output of the current controller, while traditional methods consider the feedback synchronous currents or their errors to calculate
the compensation terms. The proposed method allows the controlled system to be equivalent to a dual single-input–single-
output system without cross-coupling terms. The performances of this method have been validated through simulations and
experiments on a 3-kW IM powered by a 3-level neutral-point clamped inverter at different operating conditions. The results
show that the proposed decoupling approach provides additional bandwidth frequency than traditional approaches from
literature. This characteristic translates into fast response time and improved decoupling dynamics at various operating
conditions.

1 Introduction synchronous rotating frame. It allows three-phase quantities to be

Indirect field-oriented control (IFOC) scheme is the standard
control method for the speed and torque regulation in three-phase
induction motors (IMs) drives [1–3]. This approach enables to
control the torque and flux by adjusting the stator current in the
Fig. 1 IM fed by a PWM inverter
(a) Indirect field-oriented control (IFOC) scheme, (b) Principle, (c) Innermost current
control loop
handled as their equivalent DC values in a steady-state condition.
This means in the IFOC control structure shown in Fig. 1a, the
torque and flux can be independently controlled with the
synchronous-frame current controller. There, the flux and speed
controllers generate d- and q-axis reference currents, respectively.
An estimator is needed to implement the orientation of the rotor
field as illustrated in Fig. 1b. It leads the rotor flux linkage of the
motor aligned along the d-axis of the rotating synchronous-frame
which allows a perfect decoupling characteristic for applications
that use high pulse ratios [2, 3].
Fig. 1c shows the synchronous-frame current control loop
which is reduced to a controller Cdq(s), and the plant model P(s).
The simplified model of the plant in synchronous-frame introduces
cross-coupling terms that are neglected in the traditional design of
the innermost current controllers. Moreover, the control time delay
is also ignored since high carrier frequency is the most time
considered. However, in high-power applications, because of
excessive switching losses resulting by the PWM inverter, the
carrier frequency has to be limited to several kHz. Therefore,
cross-coupling problem between electromagnetic torque and flux
occurs. This means a step change of the load torque or reference
speed which occurs on q-axis current introduces a disturbance
which results in a slow dynamic on d-axis current. It can cause
adverse effects such as de-magnetisation of the IM, over-voltage,
over-current and the system instabilities if proper decoupling
control is not considered [4].
For the electrical drives that operate with low pulse ratios,
several decoupling control strategies have been proposed in the
literature [4–9]. Among them, the total leakage inductor current
feedforward compensation (FFC) is a well-known approach. It uses
a voltage calculated from the feedback current, leakage inductance
and the synchronous speed to compensate the plant cross-coupling
terms. However, this voltage compensation is strongly dependent
on the current control bandwidth frequency which is limited by the
PWM carrier frequency (0.3–2 kHz) and the control time delay. It
introduces many design challenges to ensure a proper decoupling

IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679 669

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
dynamic with good control performances especially when using the simulations and experimentations at different switching frequencies
approximate model of the plant (motor and PWM inverter) is used and operating points.
to tune the control parameters [4–7].
Decoupling control techniques are also used in other domains of 2 System modelling
application such as grid-tie systems and static synchronous
compensators [8–11]. A decoupling technique named complex 2.1 Accurate and approximate models of an IM
vector proportional–integrator (cVPI) has been early proposed in In a synchronous rotating frame, the dynamic equations of a three-
[5, 6] and more recently in [8]. In this method, a complex zero is phase IM using space vector state variables can be rewritten as
used in the controller to cancel the complex pole of the plant model given in (1) [4]. The stator current is = isd + jisq, and the rotor flux
which results in a good decoupling dynamic against the grid
λr = λrd + jλrq are the state variables. The input voltage is denoted
inductance variation and the control delay. However, the
drawbacks of this approach are parameters mismatch due to the by vs = vsd + jvsq. The synchronous-frame speed is denoted by ωda,
grid frequency deviations and a reduced disturbance capability. An while the rotor electrical speed is ωm. The IM slip speed is
assessment explaining the limitations of this method can be found ωslip = ωda − ωm.
in [9]. Other methods such as those involving precise modelling of
the plant and extension of the FFC approach (one-step prediction d vs + vemf
is + τs i = − jτsωdais
FFC and pre-processed reference current FFC) were also proposed dt s Rmot
[9–13]. However, most of these methods need the stator current, a
dynamic/static gain or low-pass filters to generate the voltage dλr Lr
τr + λr = Lmis − j ωda − ωm λr
compensation. These approaches enable acceptable dynamic dt Rr
responses for some performance indices such as low-frequency (1)
Lm Rr
disturbance rejection capability and robustness to the grid with: vemf = − jωm λr;
Lr Lr
frequency deviation. However, the synchronous currents are still
disturbing each other due to the limited control bandwidth Lm 2 σLs Lr
Rmot = Rs + Rr ; τs = ; τ =
frequency [4]. Lr Rmot r Rr
For high-power drive applications, cVPI has been also
demonstrated to provide superior decoupling performances if the ap Is(s) 1/Rmot
current controller is designed based on an accurate model of the Gcplx(s) = =
Vs(s) 1 + τss + jωdaτs
motor. A single-input–single-output (SISO) complex transfer (2)
function with two poles and a zero was derived in [4] and then, with
used to design a controller with complex coefficients. However, Is(s) = Isd + jIsq, Vs(s) = V sd + jV sq
this method was validated during the load torque disturbance only
and reference speed changes were left. In addition, it is only the From (1), the model of an IM is viewed as a set of two first-order
pole-zero cancellation method that is always used to tune the systems having two-time constants, τs and τr, with the stator
control parameters [5, 14]. Note that, a design guideline based on voltage and induced back electromotive force (EMF) as external
complex root locus method has been recently proposed in [15] but excitations. The standard designs of synchronous-frame PI current
this design tool is not widely known in academic research and regulators are often based on the approximate model of the IM
industrial practice yet. ap
which is derived in (2) in its complex form, Gcplx(s), and in (3) is
This paper introduces a new approach that is based on a
ap
decoupled transfer function matrix of the plant to solve cross- its transfer function matrix form, Gdq(s) [5, 14] and [9–13] for grid-
coupling problem in motor drive application during the load torque connected based L-filter. The models of the motor given in (2) and
and reference speed changes. Instead of using current (3) ignore the rotor dynamics and assume the back-EMF voltage to
measurements for the voltage compensation, it introduces a be a measurable disturbance voltage to the closed-loop system.
decoupling transfer matrix between the output of the current
controller to be designed and the model of the plant. This allows 1 1 + τss −τsωda −1
ap
the controlled system to be ideally dealt as a dual SISO system Gdq(s) = (3)
Rmot τsωda 1 + τss
without cross-coupling effects. Thus, well-known design
techniques can be used to tune the control parameters and ensure a
perfect decoupling dynamic between synchronous-frame currents if 1 τrs + a
Gcplx(s) = (4)
the plant is accurately modelled with acceptable parameters Rmot τsτrs2 + bs + c
deviation.
The main contributions introduced by this work are listed as An accurate model which does not consider the simplifications
follows: used to obtain (2) has been presented in [4]. This model can be
rewritten as given in (4), where a, b, and c are complex coefficients
(i) a decoupling current control method is proposed for solving which are defined in (5).
cross-coupling problems of the plant model for an electrical drive
with low pulse ratios; 1 Lm
2

(ii) a new representation for the accurate model of an IM is
proposed;
(iii) a simple tuning method for the controller parameters which is
a function of the desired closed-loop settling time is presented;
(iv) the validations of the proposed design approach are
investigated through simulations and experiments with a reduced-
scale laboratory prototype.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 derives
analytical expressions of the accurate and approximate models of
the plant that are used throughout this paper. Section 3 summarises
the two most known design approaches of decoupling current
regulators for three-phase AC machines, which can also be adapted
for grid-connected systems. Section 4 introduces the proposed
control strategy. Section 5 evaluates the performances of the
proposed strategy against FFC method through intensive
a = a11 + ja22, a11 = 1, a22 = ωslipτr, k2 =
Rmot Lrτr
b = b11 + jb22, b11 = τs + τr , b22 = τsτr ωda + ωslip (5)
c = c11 + jc22, c11 = 1 − k2 − τsτrωdaωslip ,
c22 = τsωda + τrωslip + k2τrωm
Equation (4) clearly shows that the accurate model of an IM is a
second-order system with complex coefficients that depend on the
IM parameters, including the mechanical and slip speeds. This
model reflects the fact that the IM mainly has two coupled
dynamics in the stator and rotor sides, respectively. The traditional
model considered for the controller design only considers the stator
dynamics, as shown in (2).

670 IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
frequency f sw and twice this value ( f s = 2 f sw) for the
asymmetrical sampled PWM. In the d-q frame, the complex
transfer function of the pure time delay in Laplace domain is given
in (9). The equivalent representation in MIMO matrix form is
given in (10).
(see (8))
τ
Gcplx (s) = e− τd s + jωda (9)

τ e− τds 0
GpE(s) = Gdq(s) = Φlag
− τds
0 e
(10)
cos ωdaτd +sin ωdaτd
Φlag =
−sin ωdaτd cos ωdaτd

In (10), matrix Φlag represents the projection of the delay in the

rotating d-q frame, which has an angular speed ωda. The rotation
angle ϕ = ωdaτd depends on the synchronous speed and the inverter
Fig. 2 Comparison between accurate and approximate models of an IM in switching frequency. The effect of the matrix Φlag can be removed
terms of stator current response trajectories by introducing a phase-lead compensation matrix Φlead, which is
implemented in the inverse of Park-transform during the
Equation (6) is the accurate model of the motor in scalar conversion of the reference command signals coming from the
representation, which is equivalent to its complex representation controller to the modulator [16]. After the phase-lead
given in (4). The elements Gd and Gq are given in (7). compensation, (10) can be rewritten as given in (11).
Gd(s) −Gq(s) 1 0
Gdq(s) ≡ Gd + jGq → Gdq(s) ≡ (6) τ
ΦleadGdq (s) = Ie− τdswithI =
Gq(s) Gd(s) 0 1
−1 (11)
cos ωdaτd sin ωdaτd
Fig. 2 illustrates the stator current trajectory response, comparing Φlead =
the accurate and approximate models of an IM. It shows that both sin ωdaτd cos ωdaτd
models are accurate for fast transients; however, over time, both
trajectories and final states become considerably different. This τ 1
ΦleadGapp (s) ≃ I (12)
happens because the simplified model does not consider the rotor 1 + τds
dynamics, which are typically much slower than the stator ones.
Thus, during the first instants both trajectories are similar since the The benefit of the model given in (11) is the fact that all the delays
rotor dynamics have almost no effect on the overall response. As can be handled as output delays which have the same value. This
time elapses, rotor dynamics evolve and have a significant impact reduces the complexity of the open-loop model of the plant and
ap
on the final state of the motor. The static gains defined by Gcplx(0) makes easier the design of both the current controller and
and Gcplx(0) are different in both models, as can be seen from (2) decoupling network. In addition, this guarantees that the
and (4). The design of a current controller based on the simplified decoupling network is realisable since none of its elements will
model requires a large closed-loop frequency bandwidth to quickly have predictions. For the tuning of a low-order controller, such as a
overwrite the remaining trajectories that the model does not PI or PID, it is common to approximate the time delay as a first-
consider. However, when the PWM inverter switching frequency is order system, as given in (12) [4, 16, 21]. Details about the
low, the common approach is to ensure the closed-loop bandwidth limitations of such approximation are discussed in [22].
ten times smaller than the sampling frequency to avoid possible
instability problems, partially influenced by the time delays of the 2.3 Final model of the plant P(s)
command and control units [16].
The different transfer matrices of an IM fed by a PWM inverter,
defined by P(s) = GpE(s)Gdq(s), are given as in (13) and (14).
2.2 Model of the PWM inverter in synchronous-frame
The possible models of the PWM inverter and their effects on the 1 Gd(s) −Gq(s)
Pac(s) = I (13)
drive system have been reported in [17–19]. For control design 1 + τds Gq(s) Gd(s)
purpose, it is usually considered as a delay between the command
and actual voltages [4, 14, 16]. The time delay τd of the digital Pd(s) Pq(s)
control board unit is generally estimated as Pap(s) = , with:
−Pq(s) Pd(s)
1.5 1 + τss
τd = (7) Pd(s) = (14)
fs Rmot 1 + τds 1 + τss 2 + τsωda 2

τsωda
where f s is the sampling frequency, generally synchronised to the Pq(s) =
PWM switching frequency to avoid the use of an anti-aliasing low- Rmot 1 + τss 2 + τsωda 2
1 + τds
pass filter [20]. The regular sampled PWM is used when the
sampling frequency is selected to be equal to the switching

1 τsτr2s3 + b11 + a11τs τrs2 + c11τr + a11b11 + a22b22 s + a11c11 + a22c22

Gd(s) =
Rmot τs τr s + 2τsτrb11s3 + 2c11τsτr + b11
2 2 4 2 2
+ b22 s2 + 2 b11c11 + b22c22 s + c11
2 2
+ c22
(8)
1 b22 − a22τs τrs2 + τrc22 + a11b22 − a22b11 s + a11c22 − a22c11
Gq(s) =
Rmot τs τr s + 2τsτrb11s3 + 2c11τsτr + b11
2 2 4 2 2
+ b22 s2 + 2 b11c11 + b22c22 s + c11
2 2
+ c22
IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679 671
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 3 Block diagram of the current regulator with FFC
Fig. 4 Block diagram of the proposed decoupling current regulator
Equation (13) represents the accurate model of the motor with the
approximate time delay model considering the compensation
matrix Φlead. While (14) is the approximate model of the motor and
time delay also considering the compensation matrix Φlead.
The analytical expressions given above can be used to design
the synchronous-frame current controllers and the decoupling
strategy between d- and q-axis currents. However, both models
have non-zero elements out of the main diagonal (known as cross-
coupling terms) and time delays, characteristics which increase the
difficulty of the control design task if a fast response is desired in a
closed loop. In addition, as the controller bandwidth is limited, it is
difficult to achieve an excellent decoupling between d and q axes.
In Section 4, a design approach based on the decoupled model
is proposed to mitigate this issue for AC machines. Before that,
traditional approaches for current control design applied electric
drives are reviewed in Section 3.
3 Traditional decoupling current regulators
3.1 Decoupling current control based on PI controller with
feedforward compensation
The traditional method to solve the coupling problems between the
controlled variables isd and isq is based on the FFC shown in Fig. 3.
The basic idea is to use the feedback stator current and the
coupling terms of the approximate model of the IM to estimate the
compensation voltages that need to be added to the voltage
commands generated by the PI regulators, as highlighted in the
dashed rectangle in Fig. 3.
1 1 1 system if the plant is accurately modelled, so the design of the
P0(s) = C(s)
Rmot 1 + τss 1 + τds
(15)
1 approach has been also applied in the innermost current control of
C(s) = Kp 1 + I a stand-alone brushless double fed induction generator in [23].
τis
Kp
Pcl(s) = 2 I (16)
τsτdRmots + τsRmots + Kp
1 1
Kp = τsRmot , τi = τs, ωc = (17)
4τdζ2 τd
The drawbacks of the FFC approach for the case considering high
synchronous speeds or low switching frequencies have been
672
17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
intensively reported in the literature, particularly in [4]. In such
cases, the cross-coupling problem still occurs because the FFC
does not compensate all the cross-coupling terms of the plant
model, such as those caused by the time delays and by the rotor
dynamics.
A simple solution for improvement with few modifications is to
use an additional voltage compensation calculated from the actual
stator voltage multiplied by the cross-coupling term τdωda [21].
However, this method requires voltage sensors, which will result in
additional components in the original IFOC.
3.2 Decoupling current control based on controller with
complex-valued poles and zeros
The use of a controller with complex-valued poles and zeros was
proposed in [4]. The purpose of this approach is to use the complex
poles and zeros of the controller to cancel all the zeros and poles
with imaginary parts of the plant, which create the cross-coupling
effect between the controlled variables. In contrast with the
previous FFC approach, the design of this controller is based on the
accurate model of the plant with complex-valued coefficients given
in (4). Therefore, the open-loop plant is derived as shown in (18)
and the current controller with integral action and cancelling
elements proposed in [4] is derived in (19). The controller C(s)
uses the inverse of the plant model to cancel all the complex-
valued poles and zeros of the system and then force the plant to
operate with the same characteristics as previously given in (17).
τrs + a
P0(s) = C(s) (18)
Rmot τsτrs2 + bs + c 1 + τds + jτdωda
1 Rmot τsτrs2 + bs + c 1 + τds + jτdωda
C(s) = (19)
τss τds + 1 τrs + a
The dynamic performance of this approach in comparison with the
FFC strategy was investigated in [4]. However, the structure of this
controller is complex for practical implementation and remains to
be evaluated for the cases considering mechanical load conditions.
A similar approach was also examined for RL loads and
synchronous machines by considering the approximate model of
the plant [8].
4 Design based on the decoupled model of the
plant
The purpose of this section is to introduce the approach based on a
decoupled model of the plant to design the current controller.
4.1 Basic principle
This approach comes to facilitate the design of controllers for
MIMO systems with cross-coupling terms. It is achieved by
inserting a decoupling matrix (known as a decoupler) between the
controller to be designed and the model of the plant, as shown in
Fig. 4, which is the current control structure proposed in this paper.
With this configuration, the controller can be designed considering
the decoupled version of the original model of the plant, which can
be obtained from its approximate or accurate representation. The
decoupled system ideally becomes equivalent to a dual SISO
controller becomes much simpler than in the coupled case. This
The decoupler is represented by two dynamics, which are
highlighted in the dashed box of Fig. 4. In a matrix representation,
the decoupler is denoted by D(s), as given in (20). The decoupled
model of the plant seen by the controller is then defined by:
Pdd(s) = P(s)D(s), as given in the first two rows of (21a) in its
general form. The decoupled transfer matrix of the plant model is
given in (21b) for the case in which Pd12 = Pd21 = 0, so that the
resulting system is decoupled. For linear and symmetric three-
IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
phase motors, (21b) represents a new model of the motor which is derived using the model of (6). As the dead time is the same for all
equivalent to two independent SISO systems. elements, it is cancelled in the decoupler expression. This means,
using (6) or (13) yields the same expression for the decoupler.
1 D1(s) Equation (26), which can be further reduced to (27), since in this
D(s) = (20) case there are two pole-zero cancellations. The decoupled model of
D2(s) 1
the motor is then reduced to a system having two poles and a zero
Pd11 Pd12 that accurately represent all the dynamics of an IM for zero slip
Pdd(s) = Pd(s) + jPq(s) D(s) → speed. The analytical expressions for p1, p2 and z1 are given in (28).
Pd21 Pd22
Pd(s) − Pq(s)D1(s) Pd(s)D2(s) − Pq(s) Gd2 + Gq2
= Pd11 = ; Pd11 = Pd22 (25)
Pq(s) + Pd(s)D1(s) Pq(s)D2(s) + Pd(s) Gd
Pq(s)
ifPd12 = Pd21 = 0 → D2(s) = − D1(s) = − and (21a,b) For zero slip speed conditions, Pd11(s) can be simplified to
Pd(s)
Pd2 (s) + Pq2 (s)
0 Pd11(s)
Pd
Pdd(s) = (26)
Pd2 (s) + Pq2 (s) 1 τsτr2s3 + b11 + τs τrs2 + c11τr + b11 s + c11
0 =
Pd Rmot τs τr s + 2τsτrb11s3 + 2c11τsτr + b11
2 2 4 2
s2 + 2b11c11s + c11
2

4.2 Design based on the plant approximate model 1 (s + z1)

The decoupling transfer matrix D(s) and the elements of the
decoupled model of the plant Pdd(s) given in (22) are derived using
the approximate model previously given in (15) with the
expression of (20) and (21b). The open-loop transfer matrix of the
controlled system is given in (23).
τsωda
1 −
1 + τss
D(s) =
τsωda
1 (22)
1 + τss
1 1
Pd11(s) = ; P (s) = Pd11(s)
Rmot 1 + τds 1 + τss d22
1 Cd 0 1
Pd0(s) = (23)
Rmot 0 Cq 1 + τds 1 + τss
(see (24))
Assuming Cd(s) = Cq(s) with the simplified decoupled model of
the motor, the open-loop transfer function is given in (23). This
expression is equivalent to (16), which was used in the traditional
design with the current controller based on FFC. Therefore, the
controller can be tuned as in the FFC case. However, in the
proposed approach, the decoupler should be implemented as given
in (22) and Fig. 4. Under the same circumstances as in the FFC
case, d- and q-axis currents can be regarded as independent.
However, it is noted that the approximation made from the model
will impact the decoupling current dynamics.
It is noted that the above design based on (22) and (23) is also
valid for the current control in grid-connected applications. In this
case, τs is the time constant of the grid-side RL system, ωda is
related to the grid angular velocity, and the back EMF can be
neglected.
4.3 Design based on the accurate model of the plant
When considering the accurate model of the IM, the elements of
the decoupling transfer matrix and the decoupled model of the
motor are expressed as given in (24) and (25). They have been
Pd11(s) = (27)
Rmotτs (s + p1)(s + p2)
(see (28))
For the accurate model the results are different from the FFC
approach if the new model proposed in (27) is considered. It is
suggested to tune the parameters of the PI current controller based
on the root locus plot. For the case which considers a closed-loop
response which is faster than the open-loop dynamics, the integral
time constant τi and the proportional gain Kp of the controller can
be determined as a function of the desired closed-loop settling time
tS as:
Pos(Pos − p1)(Pos − p2)
Kp = Rmotτs
1
(Pos − z1) Pos +
τi (29)
p − 2Pos 5.9
τi = 1 2 , Pos = −
Pos tS
The tuning rule presented in (29) is expressed as function of certain
parameters of the IM and the desired settling time, which needs to
be faster than the open-loop settling time. Note that, this approach
can be seen as an extension of the FFC for the case which
considers the accurate model.
5 Simulation and experimental verification
This section presents simulation and experimental results of the
decoupling current control strategies investigated in this paper. The
simulated system consists of a 3-level neutral-point clamped (NPC)
inverter supplying a 3 kW, 1430 rpm IM coupled to a permanent
magnet synchronous generator (PMSG), the IFOC is the overall
control scheme which includes the current controllers investigated
in this paper. The speed regulator was designed according to the
guideline given in [24]. The integrators of the speed and current
controllers were discretised using Forward-Euler approach. The
decoupling transfer matrices were discretised using zero-order hold
method. The asymmetrical sampled PWM strategy with zero
sequence component was considered. Two cases have been
considered for two switching frequencies (1.2 and 0.6 kHz). The

b22 − a22τs τrs2 + τrc22 + a11b22 − a22b11 s + a11c22 − a22c11

D2(s) = (24)
τsτr s + b11 + a11τs τrs2 + c11τr + a11b11 + a22b22 s + a11c11 + a22c22
2 3

1
z1 = and p1, p2
τr
(28)
1 1
= (τ + τr) ± 4L2 τ + LrRmotτr2 − 2LrRmotτrτs + LrRmotτs2
2τsτr s LrRmot m s
IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679 673
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 1 Parameters considered for validation
Parameters Simulation Experiment
DC-link voltage obtained from a 12-pulse rectifier
12-pulse transformer voltages 2 × 127 V 2 × 127 V
DC-link Capacitor 2200 μF 2200 μF
PWM inverter (Voltage source converter)
3-Level NPC inverter 18 kW 18 kW (max)
carrier frequency, fsw (1.2 and 0.6) kHz 0.6 kHz
induction motor (3 kW, 50 Hz, 1430 RPM)
pair of poles, P 2 2
resistor, Rmot see (1) 4.184 Ω 4.184 Ω
transient inductanceσLs 0.128 H 0.128 H
stator; rotor time constant 3.1; 235 ms 3.1; 235 ms
magnetizing induct., Lm 250 mH 250 mH
inertia coefficient, J 0.018 kg.m2 0.018 kg.m2
current and speed regulators (PI)
sampling frequency, fs (2.4 and 1.2) kHz 1.2 kHz
bandwidth frequency (0.8 and 1.6) kHz 500 rad/s
speed regulator, kp, ki 0.52 and 24 0.3 and 0.6

parameters considered are given in Table 1 for both simulation

cases and experimental validation.
In each case, the traditional and proposed control schemes have
been evaluated.

5.1 Simulation results and discussion

The coupling dynamics between the currents isd and isq were
evaluated during a reversible step change of the load torque set to
75% of the rated values of 30 Nm. The mechanical speed was
maintained constant and equal to 715 RPM by a speed regulator
with a reference filter. More than sixteen simulation cases were
performed and analysed. The simulation results are summarised in
the plots of Fig. 5 (for the nominal case), Figs. 6 and 7 (which
consider model mismatch).
Further investigations have been performed in order to illustrate
the system performances during a step change of the mechanical
speed at a constant load torque when considering different
switching frequencies (1200 and 2000 Hz). The results of these
investigations are shown from Figs. 8–12.

5.1.1 Step change of the load torque: Figs. 5a and b show the
results of simulation when a PI regulator only (without FFC) and
with a feedforward compensation (with FFC) are considered. The
results shown in Fig. 5a consider the switching frequency of 1200
Hz and the step change of the mechanical load that obviously
influences the dynamics of q-axis currents for both controllers.
This change also impacts the d-axis current transient behaviour
denoted by ‘Isd without FFC’. It deviates by 60% of its reference
value during almost 0.02 s. However, when an additional FFC is
added to the control loop, the transient behaviour of the d-axis
current is slightly improved. The current denoted by ‘Isd with Fig. 5 Simulation results with the nominal parameters
FFC’ now deviates by about 40% from its reference value. (a), (b) isd, isq respectively for the conventional approaches, (c), (d) isd and isq
In Fig. 5b, the switching frequency is now set to 600 Hz, the respectively for the proposed approaches
same analysis as described previously is considered. In this case,
the transient behaviour of d-axis current is more degraded than in improvements are obtained in comparison to the results shown in
the previous case for both control approaches. It can be seen that Figs. 5a and b for the traditional FFC method. The improvement
‘Isd w/o FFC’ (without feedforward compensation) has increased can be seen in Figs. 5c and d from the current denoted by ‘Isd with
from 60% to about 105% from its reference value, while ‘Isd with DC_1st’ (based on approximate model) and ‘Isd with DC_4th’
FFC’ (with feedforward compensation) has also increased from 40 (based on accurate model) when the switching frequency is 1200
to 80%. and 600 Hz. For the case considering 600 Hz, ‘Isd with DM_1st’
The results shown in Figs. 5a and b confirm that at low has a deviation of ∼60%, while ‘Isd with DM_4th’ current deviates
switching frequencies, for the values below or slightly above 1 40% of its reference current. Thus, the proposed approach provides
kHz, the dynamic coupling problem between synchronous currents improved results than the standard FFC.
still occurs when using a traditional PI regulator with FFC [4, 7,
14, 25].
Figs. 5c and d show the results after adding new decoupling 5.1.2 Sensitivity to parameter variation: Decoupling strategies
matrices as explained in Section 4. In both cases, significant are inherently model-based approaches. A variation of three
parameters of the motor through the stator time constant τs
674 IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 6 Simulation results with parameter variations for the conventional
approaches at different switching frequencies
(a) 1200 Hz, (b) 600 Hz
Fig. 7 Simulation results with parameter variations: Cases
(a–b) isd and isq for the proposed approaches
−1
(σLsRmot ) is considered in order to evaluate the sensitivity of the
investigated control strategies. The estimated value of τs is set to
40% of the real value of τs shown in Table 1 and the simulation
results for this case shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are also obtained at two
switching frequencies, as in Section 5.1.1.
IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 8 System responses at 1200 Hz (carrier frequency) with step changes
of the load torque and speed (traditional design)
Fig. 9 System responses at 2000 Hz (carrier frequency) with step changes
of the load torque and speed
These results reveal that the proposed decoupling strategy is
less sensitive to parameter variations compared to the standard
approach. This can be particularly observed at 600 Hz switching
frequency shown in Figs. 6b and 7b.
The simulations performed previously were conducted at a
constant mechanical speed of 715 RPM for both cases. The load
torque change has an impact on both d and q-axis current
responses. However, this type of disturbance can be properly
compensated using FFC or the proposed decoupling methods
depending on the current controller bandwidth frequency. For low
switching frequencies, it is challenging to achieve good decoupling
performances with the FFC and this effect is even more evident in
the case which considers parameters different from their nominal
values. For both cases we showed that the proposed method can
provide enhanced performances.
5.1.3 Step change of the mechanical speed: The reference
speed command has significant effects on the coupling dynamics
between d- and q-axis currents compared to the load torque
command. At high-speed references, it could lead to the system
instability and stator current distortion if the inverter switching
675

Fig. 10 System responses with the proposed decoupling method at 1200
Hz (carrier frequency) with step changes of the load torque and speed
Fig. 11 System responses at low-speed references with FFC added to the
PI regulator
frequency is not properly selected for current controllers which use
a PI or a PI with FFC terms.
The simulation results of Fig. 8 illustrate a case where the
current controller cannot track the q-axis current generated by the
speed regulator and the speed regulation is also not able to follow
the reference value after a speed disturbance from 50 to 100% of
the IM nominal speed. The electromagnetic torque and actual q-
axis current follow the reference values defined by the load torque
with additional ripple caused by the system instability. The actual
d-axis current also follows the reference value but with significant
ripple caused by the cross-coupling terms and the speed
disturbance. Since the current controller has a limited bandwidth
frequency the FFC cannot overcome this change on d-axis current.
The actual speed response does not follow the speed command of
1430 RPM. Instead, it tries to returns to its previous value of 715
RPM. The poor dynamic behaviours obtained in this case induce
distortions in the three-phase current that lead to many practical
problems such as audible noises, temperature rise and significant
power losses in the drive system.
To mitigate the issue illustrated in Fig. 8 during the step change
of the reference speed, advanced decoupling, tuning methods must
676
17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 12 System responses at low-speed references with the proposed
controller
be considered [13] or the bandwidth frequency of the current
controller has to be increased by adjusting the inverter switching
frequency. Fig. 9 shows the same simulation as in Fig. 8 with a
switching frequency increased from 1.2 to 2 kHz, corresponding to
a bandwidth frequency of 2667 rad/s. As results, acceptable
performances are obtained both during the torque and speed
changes. The current controller needs 0.25 s to track its reference
value after the set-point change.
The improved performance obtained in Fig. 9 needs the carrier
frequency to be increased from 1.2 to 2 kHz. However, such
modification cannot be allowed for some applications. Fig. 10
shows the simulation results obtained when using the proposed
method with the simplified model at the same conditions as Fig. 8,
with the carrier frequency of 1.2 kHz. As can be seen, the system
remains stable even for a carrier frequency of 1.2 kHz and results
are better than the ones shown in Fig. 9, which considers a 2 kHz
carrier frequency. The response time of the current is improved to
0.086 s.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the simulation results at low-speed
references. In both figures the speed reference is changed from 10
to 50% of the nominal speed at t = 0.8 s. The results show that the
effects of the load torque disturbance can be neglected for both
cases and good decoupling dynamic performances between d- and
q-axis currents are obtained from both controllers. However, during
the step change of the mechanical speed the synchronous currents
are still related and the main difference between the decoupling
techniques is the response time after the speed reference change.
The proposed method provides the smallest response time, as
shown in Fig. 12.
Other investigations which are not graphically shown in this
paper have been conducted in order to understand the effects of the
speed regulator bandwidth frequency on the d- and q-axis current
responses. It was found that increasing the speed regulation
bandwidth frequency ωc, the bandwidth frequency of the current
controller is reduced. Therefore, for low switching frequencies, we
suggested to select ωc depending to the current controller
bandwidth frequency ωci. This value has to be between ωci /40 and
ωci /20.
5.2 Experimental results
A reduced-scale laboratory plant with a maximum power of 18 kW
has been designed and built to validate the proposed approach. The
block diagram and some pictures of this plant are shown in Fig. 13.
The digital IFOC was implemented in a computer running
Simulink Real-Time for rapid prototyping [26]. The power stage is
IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 13 Experimental set-up with
(a) The simplified block diagram of the proposed control strategy, (b) Photograph,
* = 4.36 A and ωmech
references d-axis current and speed are isd * = 715 RPM
Fig. 14 Experimental results at 600 Hz switching frequency and a PI
controller: 1- with feedforward compensation; 2- with the proposed control
structure
(a), (b) d and q axis currents, (c) Electromagnetic torque, (d) Mechanical speed
based on a 3-level NPC inverter module. The IM rated parameters
are: 3 kW, 4-pole, 1430 rpm; and the load is a 3 kW, 50 Hz, 8-pole,
750 rpm PM generator supplying a set of switched resistive loads
through a 3-phase contactor used to manually create the torque
steps. The experimental parameters are shown in Table 1 and the
results are presented in Fig. 14 only for the operating point of 600
IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 15 Thermal pictures of the IM to verify the robustness of the proposed
method
Hz, which is the most critical case for this investigation. The
results compare the FFC (PI + FFC) and the proposed decoupling
approach (PI + decoupler) during a step down and step up of the
load torque reference. The parameters of the current regulators
were designed based on (18) and (30). Figs. 14a and b are the
recorded results which are d- and q-axis currents obtained from the
analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) of data acquisition board NI-
PCI 6229 installed in the target PC. The PWM synchronisation
with the current sampling is based on zero-order hold method.
During the variations of the load torque, the resulting
electromagnetic torque of the IM shown in Fig. 14c, tracks
correctly its reference value through the q-axis currents of both
controllers. We emphasise, that the torque responses are not
perfectly aligned because they were produced manually. The motor
mechanical speed tracks the reference speed with zero steady-state
error in both cases. The relevant difference between the two
approaches can be clearly seen in the responses of d-axis currents
shown in Fig. 14a. For the conventional approach (PI + FFC), the
d-axis current changes with the variation of the load torque
commands. On the other hand, a good decoupling performance is
obtained when using the proposed method. In this case, the d-axis
current is kept constant during the slow variation of the mechanical
speed due to the torque disturbance.
Additional experimental results were conducted to verify the
robustness of the proposed method during the step change of the
mechanical speed and the load torque with the switching frequency
of 1200 Hz. The IM temperatures of 50 and 100°C were considered
as shown in Fig. 15. Selected results are given in Figs. 16 and 17.
The measurement gains for the speed (ωmec), electromagnetic
torque (T em), currents isd and isq are 229 RPM/div, 20 Nm/div, 5
A/div and 10 A/div, respectively. The speed step changes were
done from 16 to 55% of the IM rated speed. The load torque
commands were done from 6 to 40 Nm. The PM machine load
torque is related to the IM driving speed. Thus, the step up of the
speed leads to an increase in the load torque at the same time,
while the step change of the load torque has been achieved at a
constant speed. The bandwidth frequencies for both controllers
were 400 and 40 rad/s.
For the low-temperature case, both controllers had similar
performances. Therefore, Fig. 16 presents just the response
obtained by the proposed method. The major difference between
the responses of both controllers was the time response, as already
discussed in the simulation results. However, at high temperatures,
the FFC method fails to accurately ensure proper decoupling, as
shown in Fig. 17a. This means that the parameters deviation of the
IM has an impact on the decoupling dynamics between d and q
currents when using the traditional method. The proposed approach
provides improved results, as shown in Fig. 17b.
677

Fig. 16 Performance measured at 1200 Hz switching frequency, ωci = 400 rad/s and ωc = 40 rad/s (proposed method @ 50°C)
Fig. 17 Performance measured at 1200 Hz switching frequency,
ωci = 400 rad/s and ωc = 40 rad/s (proposed method @ 50°C)
(a) Traditional method (FFC), (b) Proposed method with a simplified decoupling
matrix
6 Conclusion
In this paper, analytical models of an IM fed by a PWM inverter
have been derived to design a novel decoupling current regulator
for drives operating at very low switching frequencies. Even
though the use of the proposed decoupler is not limited to low
switching frequencies, this is the case in which the proposed
approach has more advantages over traditional approaches, since
the computational and PWM inverter time delays intensify the
cross-coupling problems between d- and q-axis currents at low
switching frequencies.
The proposed control scheme solves this problem by
considering a decoupling matrix between the synchronous-frame PI
regulators and the plant. When the nominal model is considered for
tuning the regulators, the equivalent plant model which is seen by
the controller is decoupled (it does not have cross-coupling terms).
Thus, it is possible to tune real-valued PI controllers independently
for each of the stator synchronous-frame currents. In addition to
678
17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
easing the controller design and implementation, it ensures
excellent decoupling between d- and q-axis currents if the plant is
accurately modelled. The proposed approach has been validated
through simulations and experimentations.
7 References
[1] Kouro, S., Rodriguez, J., Wu, B., et al.: ‘Powering the future of industry:
high-power adjustable speed drive topologies’, IEEE, Ind. Appl. Mag., 2012,
18, (4), pp. 26–39
[2] Bocker, J., Mathapati, S.: ‘State of the art of induction motor control’. Proc.
IEEE Int. Electric Machines & Drives Conf. (IEMDC), Antalya, Turkey, May
2007, vol. 2, pp. 1459–1464
[3] Leon, J.L., Vazquez, S., Franquelo, L.G.: ‘Multilevel converters: control and
modulation techniques for their operation and industrial applications’, Proc.
IEEE, 2017, 105, (11), pp. 2026–2081
[4] Holtz, J., Quan, J., Pontt, J., et al.: ‘Design of fast and robust current
regulators for medium voltage drives based on complex state variables’, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., 2004, 40, (5), pp. 1388–1397
[5] Briz, F., Degner, M.W., Lorenz, R.D.: ‘Analysis and design of current
regulators using complex vectors’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2000, 36, pp. 817–
825
[6] Harnefors, L., Nee, H.P.: ‘Model based current control of AC machines using
the internal model control method’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 1998, 34, pp.
133–141
[7] Jung, J., Nam, K.: ‘A dynamic decoupling control scheme for high speed
operation of induction motors’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 1999, 46, (1), pp.
100–110
[8] Bahrani, B., Kenzelmann, S., Rufer, A.: ‘Multivariable-PI-based DQ current
control of voltage source converters with superior axis decoupling capability’,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2011, 58, (7), pp. 3016–3026
[9] Zhou, S., Liu, J., Zhou, L., et al.: ‘DQ current control of voltage source
converters with a decoupling method based on preprocessed reference current
feed-forward’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2017, 32, (11), pp. 8904–8921
[10] Liu, Y., Ge, B., Abu-Rub, H., et al.: ‘Control system design of battery-assisted
quasi-Z-source inverter for grid-tie photovoltaic power generation’, IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, 2013, 4, (4), pp. 994–1001
[11] Wang, M., Wang, X., Qiao, J., et al. ‘Improved current decoupling method for
robustness improvement of LCL-type STATCOM based on active disturbance
rejection control’, IEEE. Access., 2019, 7, pp. 121781–121792
[12] Shen, J., Schroder, S., Stagge, H., et al.: ‘Precise modeling and analysis of dq-
frame current controller for high power conveters with low pulse ratio’. IEEE
Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition ECCE 2012, Raleigh, NC, USA,
Sept. 2012
[13] Yepes, A.G., Vidal, A., Malvar, J., et al.: ‘Tuning method aimed at optimized
settling time and overshoot for synchronous proportional-integral current
control in electric machines’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2014, 29, (6), pp.
3041–3054
[14] Jeong, Y.S., Sul, S.K.: ‘Analysis and design of a decoupling current controller
for AC machines’. Proc. IEEE IAS Annual Meeting, Hong Kong, 2005, pp.
751–758
[15] Doria-Cerezo, A., Bodson, M.: ‘Design of controllers for electrical power
systems using a complex root locus method’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
2016, 33, (6), pp. 3706–3716
[16] Freijedo, F.D., Vidal, A., Yepes, A.G., et al.: ‘Tuning of synchronous-frame
PI current controllers in grid-connected converters operating at a low
sampling rate by MIMO root locus’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2015, 62,
(8), pp. 5006–5017
[17] Kerkman, R.J., Leggate, D., Schlegel, D.W., et al.: ‘Effects of parasitics on
the control of voltage source inverters’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2003,
18, (1), pp. 140–150
[18] Leggat, D., Kerkman, R.J.: ‘Pulse-based dead-time compensator for PWM
voltage inverters’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 1997, 44, (2), pp. 191–197
IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

[19] Zhang, Z., Xu, L.: ‘Dead-time compensation of inverters considering snubber
and parasitic capacitance’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2014, 29, (6), pp.
3179–3187
[20] Briz, F., Diaz-Reigosa, D., Degner, M.W., et al.: ‘Current sampling and
measurement in PWM operated AC drives and power converters’. Proc. Int.
Power Electronics Conf. (IPEC), Sapporo, Japan, June 2010, pp. 2753–2760
[21] Mon-Nzongo, D.L., Jin, T., Ekemb, G., et al.: ‘Decoupling network of field-
oriented control in variable-frequency drives’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
2017, 64, (7), pp. 5746–5750
[22] Rico, J.E.N., Camacho, E.F.: ‘Control of dead-time processes’ (Springer,
London, U.K., 2007)
[23] Sun, L., Chen, Y., Su, Y., et al.: ‘Decoupling network design for inner current
loops of stand-alone brushless doubly fed induction generation power
system’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2017, 33, (2), pp. 957–963
IET Power Electron., 2020, Vol. 13 Iss. 4, pp. 669-679
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
17554543, 2020, 4, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-pel.2019.0222 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
[24] Harnefors, L., Saarakkala, S.E., Hinkkanen, M.: ‘Speed control of electrical
drives using classical control methods’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2013, 49, (2),
pp. 889–898
[25] Wang, Y., Wang, W., Wang, C., et al.: ‘Coupling analysis on current control at
low switching frequency for the three-phase PWM converter’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., 2016, 63, (11), pp. 6684–6694
[26] The MathWorks, Inc., ‘Simulink Real-Time Getting Started guide,’ Sept.
2016, [Online] Available at https://www.mathworks.com/help/pdf_doc/xpc/
index.html
679