A New Deadbeat Model Predictive Control of

Induction Motor Drives without Speed Sensor

Yongchang Zhang Boyue Zhang, Yuning Bai
Power Electronics and Motor Drives Power Electronics and Motor Drives
Engineering Research Center of Beijing Engineering Research Center of Beijing
North China University of Technology North China University of Technology
Beijing, China Beijing, China
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Abstract—In order to eliminate the weighting factor and of the weighting factor based on torque ripple minimization,
reduce the computation burden in conventional model predictive and so on. However, these methods are not very intuitive and
torque control (MPTC), this paper proposes a new deadbeat easy to use.
model predictive control. By analyzing the differentiation of
torque and stator flux amplitude analytically, a unique stator To reduce the computational burden, the complicated pre-
voltage vector reference is calculated based on the principle diction of stator current is eliminated in [4] by investigating
of deadbeat torque and flux control (DBMPC) without solving the relationship between torque and stator current. It is only
quadratic equation in prior method. A new cost function consist- necessary to predict the stator flux when calculating the torque
ing of voltage vector error is used to select the best voltage vector at the next control period. However, it still uses torque and
directly, eliminating the weighting factor in conventional MPTC.
Moreover, a different vector selection way is introduced, in which stator flux as control variables.
the best vector is determined only by the position of reference Deadbeat control is another kind of predictive control
voltage vector in the complex vector plane. As a result, the time- method, which has been widely studied. The classical deadbeat
consuming enumeration in traditional MPTC is avoided. Finally, control requires to solve a quadratic equation [5], which is
a speed adaptive stator flux observer with novel gain matrix is computational intensive. Recently, the principle of deadbeat
proposed to achieve speed sensorless operation, which has higher
speed and flux estimation accuracy than conventional fixed gains. control and MPFC are combined, which tries to nullify the
The effectiveness of the proposed method is confirmed by the error of an equivalent stator flux vector in the next control
presented experimental results. period [3]. However, so far the developed MPC for IM drives
is mainly studied under the condition of speed sensor.
I. I NTRODUCTION This paper proposes a new deadbeat MPC (DBMPC) for
As a very attractive solution for the control of power IM drives, which analytically calculates the desired stator
converters and motor drives, model predictive control (MPC) voltage vector based on the principle of deadbeat control
has obtained more and more attention throughout the world of torque and stator flux amplitude. Compared to the prior
[1]. By using a cost function, it is easy to handle multiple methods, it does not require to solve a quadratic equation or
control objectives and various nonlinear constraints while calculation of equivalent stator flux vector [5], hence avoiding
achieving quick dynamic response. For induction motor (IM) the weighting factor tuning for stator flux. Furthermore, the
drives, the cost function usually is a combined error of torque optimal voltage vector is quickly selected by identifying the
and stator flux amplitude, which requires non-trivial tuning position of the reference voltage vector, hence reducing the
work of the weighting factor for stator flux [2]. Furthermore, computational burden. Finally, a speed adaptive stator flux
the enumeration based evaluation of the cost function for each observer is proposed with new gain matrix. The gain matrix
converter voltage vector poses high computational burden. is such designed that the poles of observer are shifted to the
Finally, to make MPC a practical solution for ac motor drives, left of the poles of IM while reducing the high imaginary
speed sensorless operation is essential to reduce the system component at high speeds, hence improving the convergence
cost while increasing the system reliability. and stability of system. The effectiveness of the proposed
For the issues of weighting factor and computational burden, sensorless MPC is confirmed by the experimental results from
recently some improved MPC methods have been proposed a 2.2 kW IM drive.
to solve these problems. In [3], a stator flux vector is used
II. M ODEL OF IM
to replace conventional torque and stator flux in the cost
function. The stator flux vector is equivalently converted from When stator current is and stator flux ψ s are chosen as
the reference value of torque and stator flux amplitude and state variables in a stationary reference frame, the state-space
the resulting MPC is called model predictive flux control model of IM can be described by:
(MPFC). Other methods use the multiobjective ranking-based dx
approach, fuzzy decision-making strategy, online calculation = Ax + Bu (1)
dt

978-1-4799-7312-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 5061

 III. P RINCIPLE OF THE P ROPOSED M ETHOD
Zr*  Teref
PI Deadbeat control of usref Vector usk 2-level
 \ ref
torque and stator flux selection Inverter
In conventional MPC, a cost function with linear combina-
tion of torque and flux errors is usually used and expressed as
isk 1 \ sk 1
š

Z r [3]:
\ sk
Speed adaptive
usk J1 = Teref − Tek+1 + kψ ψ ref − ψsk+1 (4)
Delay
compensation isk stator flux isk
obsever where kψ is the weighting factor for stator flux; Teref and ψ ref
IM are the torque reference and stator flux amplitude reference.
The tuning of kψ is a non-trivial and time-consuming work.
Fig. 1. Control diagram of the proposed method
In this paper, a new MPC based on deadbeat control is
proposed. Different from the method in , which requires the
%
u reference conversion of an equivalent stator flux vector, the
proposed method directly obtains the desired stator voltage
vector reference without resorting to the additional reference
R conversion. Hence, the weighting factor is no longer required
uH 
and the principle is more straightforward. The block diagram
& of the proposed method is shown in Fig. 1, including the

v ref (uH  )
R blocks of speed adaptive flux observer, one-step delay com-
pensation [3], reference voltage vector calculation based on
u T T
R uH 
T deadbeat torque and flux control, optimal vector selection. The
u details of each block are introduced in the following texts.
2 $
A. Reference Voltage Vector Calculation Based on Deadbeat
Fig. 2. Principle of optimal vector selection.
Control
 T According to the stator voltage equation, the differentiation
where x = is ψ s are state variables; u = us is the
of the squared flux amplitude can be computed as:
stator voltage vector and
2
  d |ψs | d |ψs | d(ψs∗ ψs )
−λ(Rs Lr + Rr Ls ) + jωr λ(Rr − jLr ωr ) =2 |ψs | =
A= dt dt dt
−Rs 0 dψs∗
  = 2Re ψs = 2 (us − Rs is )  ψs (5)
λLr dt
B=
1 From (5), the differentiation of stator flux amplitude is
where Rs , Rr , Ls , Lr and Lm are the stator resistance, d |ψs | (us − Rs is ) ψs
= (6)
rotor resistance, stator inductance, rotor inductance and mu- dt |ψs |
tual inductance,
 respectively;
 ωr is electrical rotor speed and where  represents dot product of two complex vectors.
λ = 1/ Ls Lr − L2m . To achieve deadbeat control of flux linkage, the magnitude
In this paper, to discretize (1), the Heun’s method [6] is of stator flux in the next control period should be equal to its
implemented, which has excellent overall performance com- reference value, namely ψsk+1 = ψ ref . By discretizing (6)
pared to first-order Euler method. Discretization of (1) can be using first-order approximation, it is obtained that
express as:
 k 
   d |ψs | ψ ref − |ψsk+1 | us − Rs iks ψsk
xk+1
p = x + Tsc Ax + Buks
k k = = (7)
(2) dt Tsc |ψsk |
xk+1
= xk+1
p + T2sc Axk+1
p − xk
By defining Y = uks ψsk , (6) can be rearranged as
where Tsc is control period, xk+1
is the predictor–corrector of
p
 T ψ ref − |ψsk |
state vector, and x k+1
= ψ k+1
s
k+1
is
is the predicted Y = |ψsk | + Rs iks ψsk (8)
Tsc
state vector for stator current and stator flux. Similarly, speed
adaptive flux observer and one-step delay compensation also In a similar way, the differentiation of torque can be
use this discrete method [7]. calculated from (1) and (9) as [4]:
The electromagnetic torque is calculated as:
dTe 3
3 = Np λLm [−λ (Rs Lr + Rr Ls ) (ψr ⊗ ψs ) (9)
Tek+1 = Np λLm (ψsk+1 ⊗ ik+1 ) (3) dt 2
s
2 − ωr (ψr ψs ) + ψr ⊗ us ]
where Np is the number of pole pairs and ⊗ represents cross Based on the principle of deadbeat torque control, the torque
product of two complex vectors. differentiation in (9) can be discretized as

5062
 800
800
dTe T ref − Tek 3 0.36 0.25 0.18 0.125 0.08 0.035700
= e = Np λLm [−λ (Rs Lr + Rr Ls ) (10) 600
dt Tsc 2 600 0.5
 k   k  500

ψr ⊗ ψs − ωr ψr ψsk + ψrk ⊗ uks ]

k
400
400
300
0.75
By defining Z = ψrk ⊗ uks , (9) can be rearranged as 200
200
100

2 Teref − Tek  
+ Rm Tek ωr ψrk ψsk
0
Z= + (11)
3Np λLm Tsc -200
100
200

where Rm = LLms Rr + LLmr Rs .

0.75
300
-400
400
According to the definition of Y and Z, the desired stator 500
voltage vector reference can be analytically derived as: -600 0.5
600
0.36 0.25 0.18 0.125 0.08 0.035700

Y ψrk + j · Zψsk
-800
800 0
uref =
-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50
(12)
ψrk ψsk
Fig. 3. Poles of IM and observer based on the gains of (15) and (17).
where Y and Z are obtained from (8) and (11), respectively.
Compared to the prior deadbeat solutions, the main merit
of the proposed deadbeat method is that it does not require to dx̂
= Ax̂ + Bus + G(is − îs ). (14)
solve a quadratic equation or conversion of equivalent stator dt
flux vector, which is quite simple and straightforward.  T
where x̂ = îs ψ̂s are state variables representing the
B. Optimal Vector Selection estimated stator current and stator flux.
Obviously, if the stator voltage reference uref is tracked The design of the gain matrix G is critical for observer.
quickly and accurately, Teref and ψ ref will be satisfactorily In conventional observer, the gain matrix G is such designed
controlled. Thus, the inherent cost function of the proposed that the poles of observer is proportional to the poles of IM
method is actually [8]. The gain matrix G can be expressed by the following
equation:
G = uref − uk (13)
 
where uk is the output voltage vector of inverter in this control λ(k − 1)(Rs Lr + Rr Ls ) + j(1 − k)ωˆr
G0 = (15)
period. It can be easily found that there is no weighting factor (k 2 − 1)Rs
in (13). where k > 1. And, k is set to 1.2 for the simulation and
The remaining work is to find the optimal voltage vector experimental texts.
which is closest to the reference voltage vector uref . Suppose In this paper, a generalized gain matrix is proposed by
the reference voltage vector uref is located in the first sector, combining the the principles of gain matrix design in both [8]
as shown in Fig. 2. The sector is divided into three regions: R1 , and [9]. The gain is such designed that the poles of observer
R2 and R3 and the borders of the three regions are composed is not only proportional to the poles of IM but also shifted to
of the median lines of the triangle OAB. The voltage vector the left of the poles of IM in the complex plane, namely
errors between uref and the three vectors u0 (000), u1 (100),
u2 (110 are uε0 ,uε1 and uε2 , respectively. If the the reference eig (A − G1 C) = k · eig (A) + b (16)
voltage vector uref is located in region R1 , it is clearly seen
that |uε0 | < |uε1 | due to the fact that 0 < θ1 < θ0 < π3 , where eig() is the function for obtaining the eigenvalue of a
where θ0 is the angle between uε0 (also uref ) and u1 and θ1 matrix; k and b are two constants.
is the angle between uε1 and u1 . Similarly, it can be easily By solving (16), the new gain matrix G1 is analytically
obtained that |uε0 | < |uε2 |. Hence, in region R1 , u0 (000) derived as
would be the optimal voltage vector. In a similar way, in region
R2 and R3 , the optimal voltage vector would be u1 (100) −2b + λ(k − 1)(Rs Lr + Rr Ls ) + j(1 − k)ωˆr
and u2 (110). The analysis indicates that the location of us G1 = 2
(k 2 − 1)Rs + b /λ−bk(RRsrL−jL
r +Rr Ls −j ωˆr /λ)
r ωˆr
directly determines the optimal voltage vector, hence avoiding
the time-consuming enumeration in conventional MPC. (17)
The gain matrix in (17) is a generalized version of the prior
C. Speed Adaptive Flux Observer gains in [8]–[10]. The main merit of (17) is that when shifting
To achieve the estimation of stator flux, a closed-loop full the poles of observer to the left of poles of IM (b < 0), the
order observer is adopted, in which the error feedback of stator imaginary component of poles can be even smaller than those
current is introduced for the sake of improving accuracy. The of poles of IM (k < 1), hence improving the stability and
mathematical model of the observer is shown as: convergence of observer.

5063
 160
TABLE I
M ACHINE AND C ONTROL PARAMETERS
150

DC-bus voltage Udc 540 V

Rated power PN 2.2 kW 140
5
Rated voltage UN 380 V
Rated frequency fN 50 Hz 0
Rated torque TN 14 Nm
Number of pole pairs Np 2 -5
Stator resistance Rs 3.065 Ω 2
Rotor resistance Rr 1.879 Ω
Mutual inductance Lm 0.232 H 1
Stator inductance Ls 0.242 H
Rotor inductance Lr 0.242 H 0
50
Flux amplitude reference ψ ref 0.85 Wb
0
Fig. 3 illustrates the poles of IM and observer based on the
gains of (15) and (17) when the motor speed varies from -3000 -50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
rpm to 3000 rpm. In this fig, the branches on the left side of time(s)
the imaginary axis corresponds to the current characteristic, (a)
and the branches on the right side near the imaginary axis
160
corresponds to the characteristic of the flux. On the whole,
as the motor speed increases, the poles of the branches of the 150
flux gradually move away from the real axis and the imaginary
140
axis. When the motor speed is high, the larger imaginary part 5
of the poles of the observer may increase the overshoot of
0
the motor in the dynamic process, and also easily reach the
stable boundary, causing the motor to lose stability. It is clearly -5
1
seen that the imaginary component of the flux branch of the
proposed gain matrix G1 is smaller than the conventional gain 0.8

matrix G0 at the same speed, which is more conducive to the 0.6

stable operation of the motor. For the tested machine in this 10
paper, k is set to 0.8 and b is set to −40 based on experimental
0
results.
IV. S IMULATION S TUDY
-10
A simulation comparison in a MATLAB/Simulink environ- 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
time(s)
ment is performed to verify the effectiveness of the proposed
(b)
method and its superiority over conventional MPTC. The
sample frequency is set to 15 kHz, which is the same as that Fig. 4. Simulated low-speed operation of 150 r/min without load for (a)
conventional MPTC with different weighting factor and (b) DBMPC.
used in the experimental text. The motor parameters are listed
in Table I. I) in conventional MPTC. On the contrary, DBMPC dose
The simulation tests were carried out in speed sensorless not have any weighting factor, and achieves the same steady
operation, which used gain matrix G1 . Fig.4 shows the test performance as the well tuned MPTC.
results at low speed without load. The variables recorded Similar conclusion can be obtained at high speed of 1500
are: estimated rotor speed, electromagnetic torque, stator flux rpm, as shown in Fig. 5. In conventional MPTC, if the value of
amplitude and one-phase stator current. It is seen that when kψ is too large or too small, the stator flux ripples and torque
the weighting factor is set to the ratio between rated torque ripples and the sine of the stator current will be significantly
and stator flux amplitude (kψ = 16.5) in [11], both the affected and even cause the motor to lose its stability. However,
stator flux amplitude and the stator current have significant DBMPC works well at high speeds without the tuning work
oscillations and the torque is not smooth. When increasing kψ of weighting factor. The above results prove that DBMPC is
from 16.5 to 30, although torque is relatively small, the stator more practical than conventional MPTC.
flux amplitude and the stator current still have small spikes.
When kψ increases to 100, the unevenness phenomenon of V. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
stator current and stator flux disappeared, and achieving better
overall control performance. Furthermore, when kψ increases The proposed MPC is experimentally tested on a two-
to 250 and 350, although the stator flux amplitude and the level inverter-fed IM drive, where a 32bit floating point
stator current are relatively stable, the torque ripple increases DSP TMS320F28335 is utilized to execute the main control
significantly, even affecting the stable operation of the mo- algorithm. The experimental setup is illustrated in (6). The
tor speed. From the above analysis, it is clearly seen that motor parameters are same as the Table I and kψ = 100 is
kψ = 100 is an optimal solution for this machine (Table finally selected as an optimal solution for conventional MPTC.

5064
 1600

1500 1500
1400 1000
500
1300
0
10
20
0
-10 10

-20 0
1
1
0.8
0.5
0.6

10 0
10
0
0
-10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
-10
time(s) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(a) time(s)
(a)
1600

1500
1500
1000
500
1400
5 0
20
0
10

-5 0
1
1
0.8
0.5
0.6

10 0
10
0
0
-10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 -10
time(s) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
time(s)
(b)
(b)
Fig. 5. Simulated high-speed operation of 1500 r/min without load for (a)
conventional MPTC with different weighting factor and (b) DBMPC.
Fig. 7. Starting from standstill to 1500 rpm for (a) conventional MPC, (b)
DBMPC.

1500 rpm for conventional MPC using cost function (4)

and DBMPC in speed sensorless operation, which used gain
matrix G1 . From top to bottom, the curves shown in Fig. 7
are estimated rotor speed, electromagnetic torque, stator flux
amplitude and one-phase stator current. In order to avoid large
starting current while providing sufficient starting torque, the
stator flux is firstly established by the current chopping control.
It is seen that the motor accelerates quickly to 1500 r/min
while the peak current is limited within 10 A. The response
of the two methods are very similar. However, conventional
MPC requires fine tuning work of weighting factor for stator
flux, which is time-consuming.
Apart from dynamic responses experiments, the steady state
experiments were carried out at low speed (150 rpm) without
Fig. 6. The experimental setup for a 2L inverter-fed IM drive. load. As shown in Fig.8, it is clearly seen that the torque
ripple of DBMPC is smaller. Similarly, DBMPC’s current total
The experimental data are obtained from an oscilloscope and harmonic distortion (THD) can achieves better performance
then transferred to PC for analysis. compare to MPTC. To further confirm the effectiveness of
Fig. 7 presents the starting responses from standstill to the proposed method, the steady state experiments with load

5065
 5 1600

0 1500

1400
-5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 16
time(s)
5 14

12
0
0.9

-5
0 0.033 0.067 0.1 0.133 0.85
Fundamental ( 5Hz ) = 3.1765A THD = 17.7063%
0.8
Hn /H1 (%)

3 10
2
1 0

0 THD=11.2056%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -10
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Frequency (kHz)
time(s)
(a)
(a)
5
1600

0
1500

-5 1400
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
time(s) 16
4
14
2
0 12
-2 0.9
-4
0 0.033 0.067 0.1 0.133 0.85
Fundamental ( 5Hz ) = 3.1961A THD = 16.8025%
4
Hn /H1 (%)

0.8
10
2
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THD=10.7203%
-10
Frequency (kHz) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
(b) time(s)
(b)
Fig. 8. Experimental low speed operation of 150 rpm without torque for (a)
conventional MPTC and (b) DBMPC. Fig. 9. Experimental high speed operation of 1500 rpm with rated torque for
(a) conventional MPTC and (b) DBMPC.
at high speed (1500 rpm) are carried out, as shown in Fig.9. 3.5
Similar to the case at low-speed operation, the performance of MPTC
DBMPC
both methods are similar and the proposed method has some
advantages in current harmonics. 3
Switching frequency (kHz)

Furthermore, the average switching frequencies for both

methods at various speeds with rated load are exhibited in
2.5
Fig.10. The two methods have similar trends in switching
frequency variation, which are low at both low and high
speeds but high at medium speeds. Nevertheless, it should be 2
noted that compared to the average switching frequencies of
conventional MPTC, DBMPC are slightly lower in the whole
speed range. By adopting the proposed method, the average 1.5

switching frequencies are reduced by up to 165Hz with respect

to conventional strategy.
1
This phenomenon may be explained by the use of a flexed 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500
weighting factor in conventional MPTC. Although the factor Speed (rpm)

has been carefully tuned, a fixed factor may not be globally Fig. 10. Average switching frequencies at different speeds with rated load
optimal over the entire speed range. Taking into account the for conventional MPTC and DBMPC.
use of different weighting factors for different conditions will
lead to a huge workload, DBMPC which dispenses with factor

5066
 proposes a new MPC based on deadbeat control. The stator
1000 voltage reference is firstly analytically derived by analyzing
0 the differentiation of torque and stator flux amplitude. Com-
-1000
pared to the prior solutions, DBMPC does not need to solve
0
a quadratic equation or additional stator flux vector reference
-10
conversion. The optimal voltage vector can be quickly found
-20
by identifying the location of the reference stator voltage
10 vector in the complex plane. Furthermore, to improve the
reliability and reduce the system cost, a speed adaptive flux
0
observer with new gain matrix is proposed in this paper. It
-10 has higher speed estimation accuracy than conventional gain
100
matrix. The effectiveness of the proposed speed sensorless
0 MPC is confirmed by the presented experimental results.
-100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
time(s)
(a) This work was supported in part by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China under Grant 51577003, and
1000 in part by Beijing Natural Science Foundation under grant
0 3162012.
-1000

-10 R EFERENCES
-20
[1] S. Vazquez, J. Rodriguez, M. Rivera, L. G. Franquelo, and M. No-
10
rambuena, “Model predictive control for power converters and drives:
Advances and trends,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 2, pp.
0
935–947, Feb. 2017.
-10
[2] H. Miranda, P. Cortes, J. I. Yuz, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive torque
100 control of induction machines based on state-space models,” IEEE Trans
Ind Electron, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1916–1924, Jun. 2009.
0 [3] Y. Zhang, H. Yang, and B. Xia, “Model-predictive control of induction
motor drives: Torque control versus flux control,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
-100 Appl., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 4050–4060, Sep. 2016.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
time(s)
[4] Y. Zhang and H. Yang, “Model predictive torque control of induction
motor drives with optimal duty cycle control,” IEEE Trans. Power
(b) Electron., vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 6593–6603, Dec. 2014.
Fig. 11. Speed reversal at ± 1500 rpm for DBMPC using (a) conventional [5] T. G. Habetler, F. Profumo, M. Pastorelli, and L. M. Tolbert, “Direct
gain matrix , (b) the proposed novel gain matrix. torque control of induction machines using space vector modulation,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1045–1053, Sep 1992.
[6] B. Wang, Y. Zhao, Y. Yu, G. Wang, D. Xu, and Z. Dong, “Speed-
is more practical. sensorless induction machine control in the field-weakening region
Finally, to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed gain using discrete speed-adaptive full-order observer,” IEEE Trans. Power
matrix in (16), Fig. 11 presents the response of speed reversal Electron., vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 5759–5773, Aug 2016.
[7] Y. Zhang, Y. Bai, and H. Yang, “A universal multiple-vector-based
from +1500 rpm to -1500 rpm using conventional gain matrix model predictive control of induction motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Power
[8] and the proposed gain matrix with DBMPC. From top Electron., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 6957–6969, Aug 2018.
to bottom, the curves are estimated and real rotor speed, [8] H. Kubota, K. Matsuse, and T. Nakano, “Dsp-based speed adaptive flux
observer of induction motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 29, no. 2, pp.
electromagnetic torque, one-phase stator current and speed 344–348, Mar 1993.
estimation error. It is clearly seen that by using the proposed [9] J. Maes and J. A. Melkebeek, “Speed-sensorless direct torque control
gain matrix, there are much less error in the rotor speed of induction motors using an adaptive flux observer,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 778–785, May 2000.
estimation, especially during the dynamic process. The results [10] Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, Z. Zhao, W. Xu, and D. G. Dorrell, “An improved
confirm the superiority of the proposed gain matrix. direct torque control for three-level inverter-fed induction motor sensor-
less drive,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1502–1513,
Mar. 2012.
VI. C ONCLUSION [11] J. Rodriguez, R. Kennel, J. Espinoza, M. Trincado, C. Silva, and
C. Rojas, “High-performance control strategies for electrical drives: An
To solve the problems of weighting factor tuning work and experimental assessment,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 2, pp.
high computation burden in conventional MPC, this paper 812 –820, feb. 2012.

5067