sustainability

Article
Design, Modeling, and Model-Free Control of Permanent
Magnet-Assisted Synchronous Reluctance Motor for
e-Vehicle Applications
Songklod Sriprang 1,2 , Nitchamon Poonnoy 2, *, Babak Nahid-Mobarakeh 3 , Noureddine Takorabet 1 ,
Nicu Bizon 4 , Pongsiri Mungporn 5 and Phatiphat Thounthong 2, *

1 Groupe de Recherche en Energie Electrique de Nancy (GREEN), Université de Lorraine, GREEN,

F-54000 Nancy, France; [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (N.T.)
2 Renewable Energy Research Centre (RERC), Department of Teacher Training in Electrical Engineering,
Faculty of Technical Education, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, 1518,
Pracharat 1 Road, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
3 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada;
[email protected]
4 Faculty of Electronics, Communications and Computers, University of Pitesti, Arges, 110040 Pitesti, Romania;
[email protected]
5 Thai-French Innovation Institute (TFII), King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok,
1518, Pracharat 1 Road, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (N.P.); [email protected] (P.T.)

Abstract: This paper describes the model-free control approaches for permanent magnet-assisted
(PMa) synchronous reluctance motors (SynRMs) drive. The important improvement of the proposed
control technique is the ability to determine the behavior of the state-variable system during both
Citation: Sriprang, S.; Poonnoy, N.;
fixed-point and transient operations. The mathematical models of PMa-SynRM were firstly written
Nahid-Mobarakeh, B.; Takorabet, N.;
in a straightforward linear model form to show the known and unknown parts. Before, the proposed
Bizon, N.; Mungporn, P.;
controller, named here the intelligent proportional-integral (iPI), was applied as a control law to
Thounthong, P. Design, Modeling,
and Model-Free Control of
fix some unavoidable modeling errors and uncertainties of the motor. Lastly, a dSPACE control
Permanent Magnet-Assisted platform was used to realize the proposed control algorithm. A prototype 1-kW test bench based
Synchronous Reluctance Motor for on a PMa-SynRM machine was designed and realized in the laboratory to test the studied control
e-Vehicle Applications. Sustainability approach. The simulation using MATLAB/Simulink and experimental results revealed that the
2022, 14, 5423. https://doi.org/ proposed control achieved excellent results under transient operating conditions for the motor drive’s
10.3390/su14095423 cascaded control compared to traditional PI and model-based controls.
Academic Editor: Mouloud Denai
Keywords: electric vehicle; inverter; permanent magnet-assisted synchronous reluctance motor;
Received: 17 February 2022 PMa-SynRM; model-free control; traction drive
Accepted: 27 April 2022
Published: 30 April 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in 1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil- By the end of 2021, the demand for electrical traction machines, including battery
iations. electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), surpassed two million units [1–4].
Electrical traction machines are also required to further develop more electric aircrafts
(MEAs) [5–7]. For these reasons, several state-of-the-art machines have been developed in
the last few years, such as synchronous reluctance motors (SynRMs) and especially perma-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
nent magnet-assisted synchronous reluctance motors (PMa-SynRMs). PMa-SynRMs can
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
produce 75% of the torque of an interior permanent magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM)
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
for the same size and liquid cooling technology [8,9]. In addition, state-of-the-art modern
conditions of the Creative Commons
motors provide more desired characteristics for electric vehicle (EV) applications, in particu-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// lar, high efficiency at low and high speeds. Therefore, PMa-SynRMs constitute a promising
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ choice for these applications. However, PMa-SynRMs have a much more complicated
4.0/). structure, which affects the control system, and its model is strongly nonlinear. Therefore,

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095423 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 2 of 21

traditional control, such as field-oriented control (FOC) based on a proportional-integral

(PI) controller, cannot accomplish high performance for all operating conditions of these
modern machines.
Furthermore, in EV applications, safety, energy saving, and soft driving are mandatory
and require improvement of the control performance of the motor drive system. Many
studies have been conducted in the last few years regarding SynRMs and PMa-SynRMs,
with special attention to machine design and optimization aspects. Multiple-flux barrier
rotors and transversely laminated rotors were reported. Rotor laminations are made by
traditional punching or wire cutting, resulting in easy and cheap construction [10,11].
Control characteristics have also been investigated [9,12,13]. In this regard, in the current
control of PMa-SynRM drive systems, the essential objective is to ensure that the stator
currents track the reference values with minimum errors in both transient and steady-state
conditions. To design a robust controller with acceptable tracking performance, all the
model-based control (MBC) approaches mentioned in the literature applied to PMa-SynRM
require extensive knowledge about the dynamics and the model of PMa-SynRM systems.
In addition, the MBC performance can be affected by unexpected dynamic variations of
the system and parametric uncertainty, which are very common phenomena in industrial
applications. To overcome the limitations of MBC approaches, some studies proposed
model predictive control (MPC) as an appropriate current control scheme for electric motors,
which ensures a fast dynamic and a remarkable safety factor [14–16]. This method’s concept
is based on predicting controlled variables in the next calculation step using the measured
variables and a mathematical model of the controlled system. Then, the predicted results
are analyzed using a cost function in terms of the difference between the desired trajectories
and real outputs of the system. Compared to the previously mentioned control techniques,
safety and fast dynamics are two remarkable features of the MPC method. Despite these
advantages, the performance of MPC highly depends on the correctness of the model, given
that a mathematical model is used in the prediction section [17]. When using the prediction
at each sampling time of the MPC algorithm, some additional mathematical calculations
are imported into the control algorithm.
Therefore, a control principle called model-free control (MFC) has been proposed
to address the limitations of the abovementioned MPC and MBC techniques. MFC, also
referred to as model-free tuning in the literature, uses a local linear approximation of the
process model, which is valid for a small time window, and a fast estimator, which is
employed to update the approximation [18,19]. The main advantage of MFC is that it
does not require the process model in the controller tuning. Few experiments have been
conducted on real-world control system structures concerning the tuning process. This
paper introduces MFC development to control both torque and speed control of PMa-
SynRMs. To verify the advantages of MFC, both simulations and experiments were carried
out under several conditions.
This paper is organized as follows. A model-free control and control law are briefly
introduced in Section 2. The main issues regarding the control of PMa-SynRMs, related
state-of-the-art studies, as well as mathematical models are reviewed in Section 3, with
a focus on MFC applied to PMa-SynRM drive systems. In Section 4, simulation and
experimental results are provided to demonstrate the advantages of the proposed MFC.
Sections 5 and 6 summarize and conclude the paper. A small-scale 1-kW test bench based
on a PMa-SynRM with ferrite magnets was implemented to confirm the high performance
of the designed control scheme in the laboratory [13].

2. Model-Free Control and Control Law (Brief Introduction)

2.1. Model-Free Control
The idea of model-free control accomplished for control system applications was
originally proposed by Fliess et al. [20,21]. Many industrial applications have significantly
changed with technology development and have become more complex. Accordingly,
modeling the dynamic and process of these applications using mathematical models
 2. Model-Free Control and Control Law (Brief Introduction)
2.1. Model-Free Control
The idea of model-free control accomplished for control system applications was
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 originally proposed by Fliess et al. [20,21]. Many industrial applications have significantly 3 of 21
changed with technology development and have become more complex. Accordingly,
modeling the dynamic and process of these applications using mathematical models be-
comes very
becomes verydifficult
difficultor
oratatleast
leasttime-consuming.
time-consuming. In In this
this case, using the MBCMBC methods
methodsfor for
these kinds of applications will be impossible. Conversely, almost all industrial
these kinds of applications will be impossible. Conversely, almost all industrial applications applica-
tions generate
generate and save and save anumber
a large large number of data
of process process thatdata thatall
contain contain all the necessary
the necessary information in-
formation
related related
to the to the
system’s system’s In
operation. operation.
this case,Init this case, it isto
is important important
use theseto use thesedata,
generated gen-
erated data,
obtained obtained online/offline,
online/offline, directlythe
directly for designing forcontroller
designing or the controller
other purposes. orInother pur-
this way,
poses.
the In this way,
model-free the(MFC)
control model-free controlis(MFC)
foundation essentialfoundation is essential
in controlling in controlling
industrial applications.in-
dustrial
So far, theapplications.
types of theSo far, thecontrol
modern types of the modern
system can becontrol
roughly system can be by
categorized roughly
MBC cate-
and
gorized
MFC, byFigure
as in MBC and1. MFC, as in Figure 1.

Figure1.1.Control
Figure Controllaw’s
law’sblock
blockdiagram.
diagram.

MFCisisaacontrol
MFC controlmethod
methodthatthatuses
usesonly
onlythetheonline
onlinedata
dataobtained
obtainedfrom
fromthethecontrolled
controlled
system to
system to design
design the
thecontroller,
controller,without
withoutthe theadditional
additionalneed
needfor
forinformation
informationabout
aboutthe
the
mathematical model
mathematical model or parameters
parameters ofof the
thestudied
studiedsystem.
system.Therefore, thethe
Therefore, MFCMFCcancan
be ap-
be
plicable for
applicable allall
for nonlinear
nonlinearsystems
systemswith
withcomplex
complexororunknown
unknownstructures.
structures.
Theprinciple
The principleof ofmodel-free
model-freecontrol
controlisisbriefly
brieflyintroduced
introducednext.
next.AAnonlinear
nonlinearsystem
systemcan
can
bedescribed
be describedby byaastate-variable
state-variablewritten
writtenasasfollows:
follows:
.
x=x =f (x,
f (xu,)u)
(1)
(1)
y = h( x, u)
y = h(x,u)
where
where x = [ x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ] T ; x ∈ Rn
u = [u1 , u2 , . . . , um ] T T; u ∈ Rmn (2)
y= [y1
x= ,xy12,,x.2. ,...,
. , ymxn]T; y; x∈∈R
m

where x is the state variable, u is the control variable,T y is themoutput variable, and n, m  N.
u = u1 ,u2 ,...,um ; u∈ (2)
According to Equation (2), the system described by Equation (1) is flat. A control law
of variable u can be expressed as follows [13]: T
y = y1 , y2 ,..., ym ; y∈
m

u = uref + ufeedback (ε) (3)

where x is the state variable, u is the control variable, y is the output variable, and n, m ϵ
N. ε = yref − y.
with
According
This controlto Equation
law (2), for
is suitable theall
system
systemsdescribed by Equation
with known (1) is flat.
parameters. A control
However, law
if only
of variable
some systemu parameters
can be expressed
can beas follows [13]:
identified or the system described by Equation (1) cannot
be identified, the controller needs to be modified as a partially-known model, replaced by a
model-free control as follows: u = uref +ufeedback(ε) (3)
. ..

with
ε = yref − y . u=
α̂(y, y, y, . . . , y(n) )
+
F
(4)
b b
.
where α̂(y)/b is a known system, and F denotes an unknown part of the system.
. .. . . . ..
The difference between α̂(y, y, y, . . . , y(n) ), α̂(y), and y is that the α̂(y, y, y, . . . , y(n) ) is
. .. .
the known part of the α(y, y, y, . . . , y(k) ), the α̂(y) is the only known part of the studied
.
system, and the y is the differential of the known part, respectively.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 4 of 21

Alternatively, it can be rewritten and rearranged as a straightforward linear model as follows:

.
y = −F + b · u (5)

2.2. Control Law

Figure 2 represents the control law block diagram for the model-free control technique.
The control law is defined as follows:
_
F
u = uref + ufeedback (ε) + (6)
b
where
. ..
 
( β +1)
α̂ yref , yref , yref , . . . yref
uref = (7)
b
_
and F is the estimated value of F, which is expressed as follows:
_ .
F = b·u−y (8)

The function α̂ is a regular function [22,23].

The feedback term ufeedback can be described by applying the PI controller as follows:
Z
ufeedback = Kp · ε + Ki · εdt (9)

Substituting Equation (6) into Equation (5), and rearranging the expressions, Equation (5)
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
can be expressed as follows:

. _
y = − F + b · uref + b · ufeedback (ε) + F (10)

Figure
Figure 2. Control
2. Control law’slaw’s
block block diagram.
diagram.

2.3. Controller Design

2.3. Controller Design _ _
The observation term purposes to afford an estimated signal F so that F → F as t → ∞  
(underThe
global convergenceterm
observation assumption
purposesfor the estimation).
to afford Consequently,
an estimated Equationso
signal (10) F
that F→
can be rewritten as follows:
t → ∞ (under global convergence assumption for the estimation). Consequently, E
.
(10) can be rewritten as follows:
y = b · uref + b · ufeedback (ε) (11)

y = b⋅uref +b⋅ufeedback(ε)
Consequently, Equation (11) describes the dynamic of the closed-loop contro
By substituting Equation (9) into Equation (11) and rearranging, Equation (11) ca
pressed as follows:

d(yref − y)
+b⋅ K ⋅ε +b⋅ K εdt = 0
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 5 of 21

Consequently, Equation (11) describes the dynamic of the closed-loop control system.
By substituting Equation (9) into Equation (11) and rearranging, Equation (11) can be
expressed as follows:

d(yre f − y) Z
+ b · Kp · ε + b · Ki εdt = 0 (12)
dt
Referring to the control law displayed in Figure 2, the controller coefficients can
be determined using the following expression obtained by taking time derivation in
Equation (12):
.. .
ε + b · Kp · ε + b · Ki · ε = 0 (13)
Comparing Equation (13) to the 2nd order standard equation stated as follows:
.. .
q + 2 · ζ · ωn · q + ωn2 · q = 0 (14)

the controller coefficients become:

2 · ζ · ωn
Kp = (15)
b
and
ωn2
Ki = (16)
b
where ζ and ω n are the tuning dominant damping ratio and natural frequency, respectively.
The gain b ∈ R is a non-physical constant parameter. Instead of α, the b is present
in this paper, as shown in (4). It was chosen by the practitioner or obtained by trials and
errors. F, which is continuously updated, subsumes the poor parts of the plant and the
various possible disturbances without distinguishing between them [24,25]

3. Applying Model-Free Control to PMa-SynRM Drive

3.1. Mathematic Model of PMa-SynRM/Inverter
A variable speed drive (VSD), which powers the PMa-SynRM under study, is shown
in Figure 3. Owing to the rotor geometries of the PMa-SynRM discussed in [26], the current
control strategies in the literature differ from those applied to PMSM. The rotor geometries
of PMa-SynRMs are given by the salient-pole, in which Ld > Lq . Its torque expression was
given by Equation (17). In this case, the id component should not be equal to zero to take
advantage of the reluctance torque produced by the high saliency ratio. Therefore, the
maximum torque per ampere (MTPA) control strategy was recommended for PMa-SynRMs.
The main idea of this control was to develop the requested torque using the minimum
value of the stator current magnitude:

Te = np Ψm − ( Ld − Lq )iq · id

(17)

The equations of a PMa-SynRM in the rotating dq reference frame and a mechanical

equation are expressed by a state-space representation as follows:
 did
   1 0 0

− R s i d + ωe ( L q i q − Ψ
  
dt m ) /L d Ld vd
diq
1

=  
 
− Rs iq − ωe Ld id /Lq + 0 Lq 0   vq 

dt
 
np Ψm id + ( Ld − Lq )iq id − Bf ωm /J

dωm
dt
0 0 − 1J TL
| {z } | {z } | {z }| {z }
. f (x) u
x   B (18)
1 0 0 id
y= 0 1 0   iq 
0 0 1 ωm
| {z }
C
  
x B

 1 0 0   id 
  
y = 0 1 0   iq 
0 0 1 ω 
  m 
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 6 of 21
C

Figure3.3.AAthree-phase
Figure three-phaseinverter
invertertotocontrol
controla aPMa-SynRM
PMa-SynRMprototype.
prototype.

3.2.
3.2.Model-Free
Model-FreeofofCurrent
Currentand
andSpeed
SpeedControl
ControlDevelopment
Development
The control system
The control system of of PMa-SynRMs proposed
proposed in inthis
thispaper
paper(Figure
(Figure4) 4)
had had a case
a case cas-
cascade construction
cade construction consisting
consisting of two
of two loops loops
(i.e.,(i.e.,innerinner current
current control
control loop loop and outer
and outer speed
speed control
control loop).loop). The inner
The inner currentcurrent
loop loop
was muchwas much fasterfaster
than than the outer
the outer speed speed control
control loop,
loop,
suchsuch thatmodel-free
that the the model-free
controlcontrol
for thefor the current
current control control was developed
was developed first. Byu
first. By defining
defining u = [u1 u2 ]T = [vd vq ]T , y = [y1 y2 ]T = [id iq ]T , and rearranging the first and second
rows in Equation (18) in the form of Equation (5), the PMa-SynRM model is expressed as
follows:
did Rs id ωe ( L q i q − Ψ m )
dt = − Ld + Ld + vd · L1d
(19)
diq Rs iq ωe L d i d 1
dt = − Lq − Lq + v q · Lq
According to the principle of the model-free as in [20,21], Equation (19) can be sepa-
rated to identify the known and unknown terms as follows. The known terms are
.
y1
α̂1 = b1 = Ld didtd
. (20)
y2 di
α̂1 = b2 = Lq dtq

and the unknown terms are

F1 = − Rs id + ωe ( Lq iq − Ψm ) · 1

Ld
(21)
F2 = − Rs iq − ωe Ld id · L1q

According to the control law (Figure 2), the first term of the model-free control for
inner current loop control is determined as follows:
.
y1ref
u1ref = b1 = Ld didtd
. (22)
y2ref diq
u2ref = b2 = Lq dt

The estimation of unknown terms is expressed as follows:

_ .
1 1 did
F1 = Ld u 1 − y1 = Ld v d − dt
_
(23)
1 . 1 diq
F2 = Lq u 1 − y2 = Lq v q − dt
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 7 of 21

The feedback terms of d- and q-axis current control are obtained as follows:
 R 
b1 · u1feedback = b1 Kpd · ε d + Kid ε d dt
R
(24)
b2 · u2feedback = b2 Kpq · ε q + Kiq ε q dt

Concerning the design procedure in the controller design, Equation (24) can be rewrit-
ten as follows: .. .
εd + b1 · Kpd · εd + b1 · Kid · ε d = 0
.. .
(25)
εq + b2 · Kpq · εq + b2 · Kiq · ε d = 0
The controller coefficients Kpd , Kid , Kpq , and Kiq are determined as follows:
2
2ζ 1 ωn1 ωn1
Kpd = b1 , Kid = b1
(26)
2
2ζ 1 ωn1 ωn1
Kpq = b2 , Kiq = b2

The second model-free control for the outer speed control loop is developed here. The
output of the speed control loop provides the torque reference of the MTPA algorithm,
generating optimized d- and q-axis current references. Therefore, Te was chosen as a
control variable of the outer speed control loop, such that u3 = TeREF . Then, rewriting the
mechanical equation of the PMa-SynRM represented by the third row in Equation (18) in
the form of Equation (5) yields:

dωm   1 1
= − B f · ωm − TL · + Te · (27)
dt J J

Separating this equation into the known and unknown terms, the known term is
expressed as follows:
.
y dωm
α̂3 = 3 = J (28)
b3 dt
The unknown term is expressed as follows:
  K
t
F3 = − B f ωm − TL · (29)
J

Each part of the model-free control for the outer speed control loop is defined according
to the following expression:
.
y3ref dωm
u3ref = =J (30)
b3 dt
The estimation of the unknown term is expressed as follows:
_ Kt . 1 dωm
F3 = u3 − y3 = · Te − (31)
J J dt
 Z 
b3 u3feedback = b3 Kpω · ε ω + Kiω ε ω dt (32)

Regarding the controller design procedure, Equation (32) can be rewritten as follows:
.. .
εω + b1 · Kpω · εω + b1 · Kiω · ε ω = 0 (33)

The controller coefficients Kpω and Kiω are determined as follows:

2ζ 2 ωn2 ω2
Kpω = , Kiω = n2 (34)
b3 b3
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 8 of 21

tainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of

where ζ 2 and ω n2 are the desired dominant damping ratio and natural frequency of the
outer speed control loop, respectively.

Figure 4. Control
Figure system
4. Control systemofofPMa-SynRM based
PMa-SynRM based on on a model-free
a model-free controlcontrol
diagram.diagram.

3.3. Trajectory Planning

3.3. Trajectory Planning
Finally, as presented in Figure 2, desired trajectory planning must be implemented to
Finally, as input
generate the presented in yFigure
set-point 2, desired
REF . A second order trajectory
filter is oftenplanning
implementedmust be implement
to plan the
desired trajectory for the controlled output. It permits limiting the derivative
to generate the input set-point yREF. A second order filter is often implemented terms in theto plan t
control law. The proposed trajectory planning for the two inner current control loops is
desired trajectory
expressed for the controlled output. It permits limiting the derivative terms in t
as follows:
control law. The proposed trajectory ( planning for the two ) inner current control loops
  2
expressed as follows: y 1REF
=1
s 2ζ
+ 3 s+1 (35)
y1COM ωn3 ωn3
y1REF ( s2  2ζ 3) 
2

y2REF = 1 s + 2ζ+3 s + 1 s + 1 (

ωn3ωn3  ωn3 ωn3
=1 (36)
y1COM
y2COM 
where ζ3 and ωn3 are the tuning dominant damping ratio and natural frequency, respectively.

y2REF  loop

The trajectory planning of the outer speed
s
2
is expressed
2ζ 
as follows:
=1  2  + 3
s + 1 (
sω 2ζ 4 ω
( )
y3REF
y2COM
y3COM
=1 
ωn4 n3+ ωn4
s + 1
n3  (37)

where ζ3 and
where ωn3ωare
ζ4 and the tuning dominant damping ratio and natural frequency, resp
n4 are the desired dominant damping ratio and natural frequency of the
tively.
speed loop trajectory planning, respectively.
The trajectory planning of the outer speed loop is expressed as follows:
4. Simulation and Experimental Validation of the Model-Free Control Applied
to PMa-SynRM
4.1. Experimental Setup y3REF  s 2 2ζ 
=1 4
 +
the prototype s+1  (
A small-scale test bench 1-KW
y3COMrelying on ω ω PMa-SynRM was conceived
in the laboratory, as shown in Figure 5. The prototype
n4  n4
PMa-SynRM  was supplied by a
3-kW 3-phase inverter (DC/AC) operating at a switching frequency of 16 kHz. Besides,
where theζinput
4 andDC ωn4grid
arevoltage
the desired dominant
of the inverter was feddamping ratio and
by a three-phase natural
variable powerfrequency
supply of t
speedcombined
loop trajectory planning,
with a three-phase respectively.
diode rectifier. The PMa-SynRM was mechanically coupled
with an IPMSM (interior permanent magnet synchronous motor) feeding a resistive load
(see Figure 3). The measurements for the speed and rotor angle were acquired by a resolver
4. Simulation and Experimental Validation of the Model-Free Control Applied to
placed on the rotor shaft. The developed control scheme relying on the model-free control
PMa-SynRM
was modeled in the Matlab/Simulink software, and then it was incorporated in the dSPACE
1202 MicroLabBox
4.1. Experimental real-time interface to generate the gate control signals applied to the VSI.
Setup
A small-scale test bench 1-KW relying on the prototype PMa-SynRM was conceiv
in the laboratory, as shown in Figure 5. The prototype PMa-SynRM was supplied by a
kW 3-phase inverter (DC/AC) operating at a switching frequency of 16 kHz. Besides, t
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 9 of 21

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

The main PMa-SynRM parameters are listed in Table 1, whereas the model-free controller
parameters are listed in Table 2.

Figure5.5.Experimental
Figure Experimental setup.
setup.

Table
Table 1. 1. Specifications
Specifications andand parameters
parameters of the
of the motor/inverter.
motor/inverter.

Symbol
Symbol Quantity
Quantity Value Value
P rated
Prated
Rated
Rated power
power 1 kW
1 kW
nrated
nrated Rated
Rated speedspeed 1350 rpm
1350 rpm
TT rated
rated Rated
Rated torque
torque 7.07 Nm7.07 Nm
nn pp Number
Number of pole pairs pairs
of pole 2 2
P.F. Power factor 0.80
P.F. Power factor 0.80
Rs Resistance (motor + inverter) 3.2 Ω
LR d
s Resistance
Nominal d-axis(motor + inverter)
inductance 288 mH3.2 Ω
Lq L d Nominal d-axis inductance
Nominal q-axis inductance 38 mH288 mH
JLq Equivalent inertia 0.017 kg m 2
Nominal q-axis inductance 38 mH
Bf Viscous friction coefficient 0.008 Nm s/rad
J Equivalent inertia 0.017 kg m2
Ψm PMs flux linkage 0.138 Wb
fsB f Viscous
Switchingfriction
frequencycoefficient 160.008
kHz Nm s/rad
VΨ dcm DC PMs flux linkage
bus voltage 400 V0.138 Wb
fs Switching frequency 16 kHz
Vdc
Table 2. Current/torque and speed regulationDC bus voltage
parameters. 400 V

Symbol
Table 2. Current/torque Quantity
and speed regulation parameters. Value
ζ 1d Damping ratio 1 0.7
Symbol
ω n1d Natural Quantity
frequency 1 3000 RadValue
s−1
ζ 1qζ1d Damping
Damping ratioratio
1 1 0.7 pu. 0.7
ωn1d
ω n1q Natural frequency
Natural frequency 11 Rad s−
2000 3000 1
Rad.s−1
ζ2 Damping ratio 2 0.7
ζ1q Damping ratio 1 0.7 pu.
ωn1q Natural frequency 1 2000 Rad.s−1
ζ2 Damping ratio 2 0.7
ωn2 Natural frequency 2 107.1419 Rad.s−1
ζ3d Damping ratio 3 1
ωn3d Natural frequency 3 300 Rad.s−1
ζ3q Damping ratio 3 1
ωn3q Natural frequency 3 200 Rad.s−1
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 10 of 21

Table 2. Cont.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Symbol Quantity Value
ω n2 Natural frequency 2 107.1419 Rad s−1
ζ 3d Damping ratio 3 1
ω n3dωn4 NaturalNatural
frequencyfrequency
3 4 300 Rad s−1 150 Rad.s−1
ζ 3qTemax Maximum
Damping ratio torque
3 reference 1 +6 Nm
Natural frequency 3 −1
ω n3q
Temin Minimum torque reference200 Rad s −6 Nm
ζ4 Damping ratio 4 1
ω n4Vdc DC bus4 voltage
Natural frequency 150 Rad s−1 400 V
Temax fs MaximumSwitching frequency
torque reference +6 Nm 16 KHZ
Temin Minimum torque reference −6 Nm
Vdc DC bus voltage 400 V
4.2. Simulations
fs Switching frequency 16 kHz

The developed MFC algorithm for the PMa-SynRM drive was simulated un
4.2. Simulations
ferent operation conditions before its implementation. Figure 6 shows the simula
sultsThe
ofdeveloped MFC algorithm
the set-point tracking for the PMa-SynRM
d-axis inner loopdrive was simulated
current under differ-
control response using the
ent operation conditions before its implementation. Figure 6 shows the simulation results
free
of the control. Interestingly,
set-point tracking note
d-axis inner that,
loop during
current the
control transient
response usingresponse, the d-axis
the model-free
trackedInterestingly,
control. the referencenotevery well, and
that, during there was
the transient no steady-state
response, error.tracked
the d-axis current The simulat
ditions were set as follows: for d-axis testing, the q-axis current command iqCOM w
the reference very well, and there was no steady-state error. The simulation conditions
zero.set as follows: for d-axis testing, the q-axis current command iqCOM was set to zero.
were

Figure6. 6.
Figure Simulation
Simulation results:
results: Dynamic
Dynamic responseresponse of thetracking
of the set-point set-point tracking
d-axis d-axiswith
current control current con
theMFC.
the MFC.

Figure 7 shows the set-point tracking q-axis current control simulation results using the
Figure 7 shows the set-point tracking q-axis current control simulation resul
model-free control. Note that the control performance was satisfactory, with good set-point
the model-free
tracking control. Note
and zero steady-state error.that
The the control
simulation performance
conditions were setwas satisfactory,
as follows: during with g
pointtesting,
q-axis tracking and zero
the d-axis steady-state
command idCOM waserror. The simulation
set to zero, conditions
and the load was the rated were
one. set as
during q-axis testing, the d-axis command idCOM was set to zero, and the load was t
one.
Sustainability 2022,
Sustainability 2022,14,
14,5423
x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 12
21 of 22

Figure7.7.Simulation
Figure Simulationresults:
results: Dynamic
Dynamic response
responseof
of q-axis
q-axis currents
currents with
with the
the MFC
MFC applied
applied to
to the
the PMa-
SynRM drive.
PMa-SynRM drive.

Another
Another simulation
simulation result is depicted
result in Figure
is depicted 8. It shows
in Figure 8. It the drive
shows theresponse to a step to a
drive response
change on the speed
step change on thereference from 0 to from
speed reference 1000 rpm.
0 to In thisrpm.
1000 figure,
InChs
this1,figure,
2, and 4Chs
represent
1, 2, and 4
the speed command n
represent the speed command COM , speed reference n
nCOM, speed reference
REF , and measured speed n, respectively.
nREF, and measured speed n, respec-
Chs 3, 5,Chs
tively. and3,6 5,
represent the torque
and 6 represent thereference TeREF andTthe
torque reference d- and q-axis currents i currents
eREF and the d- and q-axis d
and id
iqand
, and Chs 7 and 8 represent the d-axis voltage and q-axis voltage,
iq, and Chs 7 and 8 represent the d-axis voltage and q-axis voltage, respectively.respectively. The The
parameters of the simulated drive are those of the test bench that will be later used for
parameters of the simulated drive are those of the test bench that will be later used for
experimental validation. They are reported in Section 4.1. The MFC was designed to keep
experimental validation. They are reported in Section 4.1. The MFC was designed to keep
the torque within the range ±6 Nm. Note that the speed response was satisfactory with
the torque within the range ±6 Nm. Note that the speed response was satisfactory with
small overshoot and without steady-state error.
small overshoot
Although no and without
torque sensorsteady-state
was employed error.in the experimental setup, the torque
seemed to be limited to the allowed range. Moreover, iq and id were generated on the basis
of the MTPA algorithm discussed in [22].
Figure 9 shows the simulation of the disturbance rejection ability of the MFC applied to
the PMa-SynRM drive. In this figure, Ch 4 represents the measured speed n, Ch2 represents
the d-axis current id , Ch3 represents the q-axis current iq , and Ch1 represents the torque
reference TeREF . The simulation conditions were as follows: n = 1000 rpm; sudden increase
of 3.7 Nm on the load torque TL at 0.3 s; and subsequent clearance of the load torque at 0.7 s.
Note that, under the action of the proposed model-free control, when the load changed
suddenly, the motor speed deviated slightly from its set-point, but it recovered very quickly.
Figure 9 also shows the disturbance rejection capability of the MFC. As a result, the speed
control performance was significantly improved, confirming the feasibility of the proposed
MFC for this application.
 Sustainability 2022
Sustainability 2022,, 14,
14, 5423
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of13
21 of 22

Figure8.8.Simulation
Figure Simulation results:
results: Simulated
Simulated drive
drive response
response to ato a 0–1000
0–1000 rpmrpm reference
reference speedspeed
pulse.pulse.
From From
top to bottom: speed reference and response, d- and q-currents, d- and q-voltages, and active regionregion
top to bottom: speed reference and response, d- and q-currents, d- and q-voltages, and active
numberofofthe
number theMFC
MFC controller.
controller.
 torque at 0.7 s. Note that, under the action of the proposed model-free con
load changed suddenly, the motor speed deviated slightly from its set-poin
ered very quickly. Figure 9 also shows the disturbance rejection capability o
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 a result, the speed control performance was significantly improved,
13 of 21 confirm

bility of the proposed MFC for this application.

Figure
Figure9. Simulation results:results:
9. Simulation Disturbance rejection of MFC
Disturbance applied of
rejection to the
MFCPMa-SynRM
applieddrive.
to the PMa-SynR
4.3. Experimental Validation of PMa-SynRM Drive Based on Model-Free Control
4.3.TheExperimental
designed MFC Validation of PMa-SynRM
for the PMa-SynRM drive was Drive Based on validated
experimentally Model-Free on aContro
laboratory test bench. The experimental setup is depicted in Figure 5. The entire controller
The designed MFC for the PMa-SynRM drive was experimentally val
parameters of the current/torque and speed are presented in Table 2. The model-free control
boratory
stability and test bench.
response wereThe
easy experimental
to set compared tosetup the FOC is with
depicted in Figure
PI controller. 5. The en
Thus, by
parameters
defining of thethe
and selecting current/torque
governing damping and andspeed
naturalare presented
frequency in Table
as mentioned 2. The m
in the
literature [19], the controller coefficients of the PI controller for both the current and speed
trol stability and response were easy to set compared to the FOC with PI co
loops control may be calculated by (26) and (34). The PI controller was provided to deal
by defining
with and selecting
inevitable modeling errors and the governing
uncertainties. damping
Therefore, and
the PI natural
controller frequency as
guaranteed
the literature [19], the controller coefficients of the PI controller for both th
the stability of the model-free control the ensure that the current and speed control achieved
the steady-state error.
speed loops control may be calculated by (26) and (34). The PI controller w
Figure 10 shows the current control test of the set-point tracking d-axis inner loop.
deal
In this with
figure,inevitable modeling
d-axis command errors
idCOM , d-axis and uncertainties.
reference Therefore,
idREF , which is provided by thethe PI c
anteed
d-axis the stability
trajectory planning, of
andthe
the model-free control
actual d-axis current the ensureCh5,
are represented. thatCh6,the
andcurrent
Ch7 and
represent the measured stator phase currents A, B, and C, respectively. These results are
achieved the steady-state error.
similar to those obtained by simulation and confirm that the current control performance
Figure 10 shows the current control test of the set-point tracking d-axis
was satisfactory.
thisThe figure, d-axis
same test was command
conducted with idCOM
the ,q-axis
d-axis reference
current while theidREF , which
d-axis currentiswas
provided
regulated to zero. In this case, the motor was at a stand-still. Figure 11 depicts the
trajectory planning, and the actual d-axis current are represented. Ch5, Ch6
experimental data, where Ch1 represents the q-axis current command iqCOM , Ch2 represents
resent
the q-axisthe measured
current referencestator phase
iqREF , and currentsthe
Ch3 represents A,q-axis
B, and C, respectively.
current measurement iqThese. r
ilar Ch6,
Ch5, to those
and Ch7 obtained
representby
the simulation
measured stator and confirm
phase currentsthat
A, B,the
and current control per
C, respectively.
Overall, the current control performance seemed satisfactory.
satisfactory.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 14 of 21
15 of 2

Figure10.10.Experimental
Figure Experimental result:
result: Set-point
Set-point tracking
tracking d-axis
d-axis current
current control
control response
response curve curve
based based o
MFC.
on MFC.

Figure
The same12 depicts
test the
wasspeed startup with
conducted of thethe
PMa-SynRM drive using
q-axis current whilethe
theMFC.
d-axisIn this
current wa
figure, Chs 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent the torque reference T eREF , d-axis
regulated to zero. In this case, the motor was at a stand-still. Figure 11 depictscurrent id q-axis
, the exper
current iq , and measured speed n, respectively. Chs 5 and 6 represent the output vq and vd ,
mental data, where Ch1 represents the q-axis current command iqCOM, Ch2 represents th
chosen as the output of the MFC. Moreover, Chs 7 and 8 represent the estimated unknown
terms ofcurrent
q-axis the d- and reference iqREF, and
q-axis models. AsCh3 represents
expected, the q-axis
the torque currentand
was limited, measurement
the speed iq. Ch5
Ch6, and
response Ch7 represent
showed the measured
neither overshoot stator phase
nor steady-state error. currents
It is worthA,recalling
B, and that
C, respectively
the
Overall, the current control performance seemed satisfactory.
torque reference generated iq and id command references according to the MTPA algorithm.
Sustainability
Sustainability2022 , 14
2022, , x5423
14, FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21 16 of 2

Figure11.
Figure 11.Experimental
Experimentalresult:
result:Set-point
Set-point tracking
tracking q-axis
q-axis current
current control
control response
response curve curve
based based o
MFC.
on MFC.

Figure
Figure1312shows the the
depicts experimental validation
speed startup of theofPMa-SynRM
the disturbance rejection
drive usingability of In thi
the MFC.
the proposed MFC applied to the PMa-SynRM drive. In this figure, Chs 1, 2, 3,
figure, Chs 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent the torque reference TeREF, d-axis current id, q-axis and 4 cur
represent the torque reference TeREF , d-axis current id , q-axis current iq , and measured
rent iq, and measured speed n, respectively. Chs 5 and 6 represent the output vq and vd
speed n, respectively. Chs 5 and 6 represent the output vq and vd , chosen as the output
chosen as the output of the MFC. Moreover, Chs 7 and 8 represent the estimated unknown
of the MFC. Moreover, Chs 7 and 8 represent the estimated unknown terms of the d- and
termscurrent
q-axis of themodels.
d- and The
q-axis models. As
experimental expected,
conditions werethesettorque wasnlimited,
as follows: and the speed
REF = 1000 rpm,
response
and suddenshowed
increaseneither overshoot
of the load nor
torque (T steady-state error. It is worth recalling that th
L ) to 3.7 Nm at 0.2 s. Note that the proposed
torque reference generated iq and id command references according to the MTPA algo
rithm.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 16 of 21

model-free control compensated for the load torque variation and rejected its effect on the
motor speed in a short time. This figure shows the effectiveness of the MFC in rejecting load
torque disturbance and maintaining zero steady-state speed error. As a result, the speed
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 2
loop control performance was good. This result confirms the feasibility of the proposed
MFC for speed control of PMa-SynRM.

Figure12.12.
Figure Experimental
Experimental result:
result: Speed
Speed acceleration
acceleration curve curve based
based on on MFC.
MFC.

Figure 13 shows the experimental validation of the disturbance rejection ability of th

proposed MFC applied to the PMa-SynRM drive. In this figure, Chs 1, 2, 3, and 4 represen
the torque reference TeREF, d-axis current id, q-axis current iq, and measured speed n, re
spectively. Chs 5 and 6 represent the output vq and vd, chosen as the output of the MFC
Moreover, Chs 7 and 8 represent the estimated unknown terms of the d- and q-axis curren
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 2

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 17 of 21

control performance was good. This result confirms the feasibility of the proposed MF
for speed control of PMa-SynRM.

Figure13.13.
Figure Experimental
Experimental result:
result: Disturbance
Disturbance rejection
rejection ability ability
based onbased
MFC.on MFC.

5. Comparison of Traditional FOC with PI Controller, MBC, and Model-Free Control

5. Comparison of Traditional FOC with PI Controller, MBC, and Model-Free Control
Traditional FOC based on the PI controller applied to PMa-SynRM was introduced in
Traditional FOC based on the PI controller applied to PMa-SynRM was introduce
a previous study [24]. In addition, the MBC based on differential flatness-based control
in a previous
applied study [24].
to PMa-SynRM wasIn addition,
proposed in the
[13].MBC
Thus,based on differential
the comparison of theflatness-based
experimental contro
applied to PMa-SynRM was proposed in [13]. Thus, the comparison of the experimenta
results between the FOC with the PI controller and the MBC (the differential flatness-based
resultsisbetween
control) expressedthe FOC with the PI controller and the MBC (the differential flatness
below.
based control) is expressed below.
Figure 14a shows the current control test of the set-point tracking d-axis inner loo
of the FOC with the PI controller, and Figure 14b illustrates the current control test of th
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 18 of 21
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22

Figure
set-point 14a shows
tracking d-axisthe current
inner loop ofcontrol test of the
the differential set-point tracking
flatness-based d-axis inner
control applied to theloop
of the FOC with the PI controller, and Figure 14b illustrates the
PMa-SynRM drive system. In Figure 14 a,b Ch1 is the current idCOM, Ch3 is the measuredcurrent control test of the
set-point
set-pointtracking
tracking d-axis
d-axisinner
innerloop of
loop the
of thedifferential
differential flatness-based
flatness-based
current id, Ch4 is the measured current iq, and Ch5 is the measured speed n. As shown in control
control applied
applied to the
to the
PMa-SynRM
PMa-SynRM drive
drive system.
system.In Figure
In Figure14 a,b
14a,b Ch1
Ch1 isisthe
the
Figure 14a,b, in a transitory operation, the id of the FOC with thedCOM current
current i i
dCOM , Ch3
, Ch3 is the
is themeasured
measured
PI controller exhibits a
current
small iovershoot
current d,iCh4
d , Ch4is the measured
iscompared
the measured current
to the currentiq, and
differential Ch5Ch5
iq , and is the
flatness-based measured
is the measured speed
controller, n.the
speed
and Asn.ishown
q As in
shown
of the
Figure
in 14a,b,
Figure in
14a,b,a transitory
in a operation,
transitory the
operation,
FOC with PI controller shows oscillations. i
the
d ofidtheof FOC
the with
FOC the
with PI
thecontroller
PI controllerexhibits a
exhibits
a small
small overshoot
overshoot compared
compared to the
to the differential
differential flatness-based
flatness-based controller,
controller, andand thetheiq iof
q of the
the
FOC
FOC with
with PIPI controller
controller shows
shows oscillations.
oscillations.

(a) (b)
Figure 14. Experimental result: Comparison of the set-point tracking between (a) the FOC with the
PI controller and (b) the MBC.
(a) (b)
However, the differential flatness-based control was the model-based control (MBC),
Figure
Figure14.14.
Experimental
Experimental result: Comparison
result: Comparison of of
thethe
set-point tracking
set-point trackingbetween
between(a)(a)
thethe
FOC
FOCwith thethe
with
as mentioned in the introduction. Its performance depends on the system model. More
PIPI
controller
controllerand (b) the
and (b) the MBC.
MBC.
clearly, the control laws of the model-free control and the differential flatness-based con-
trol are shown in Figure 15.
However,
However, the differential flatness-based control was the model-based control (MBC),
The controlthe law differential flatness-based
of the differential control
flatness-based was the
control model-based
(See Figure 15a) control
has the (MBC),
in-
asasmentioned in the introduction. Its performance depends on the system
verse dynamic equation, which contains the system models including Rs, Ld, Lq, and ΨmMore
mentioned in the introduction. Its performance depends on the system model.
model.More
.
clearly,
clearly,the
thecontrol
In contrast, control laws
lawsof
the control ofthe
law ofmodel-free
the model-free
the model-freecontrol
control and the differential
and (See
control differential flatness-based
Figure 15b)flatness-based
estimated all the con-
control
trol
areare shown
shown
system in in Figure
Figure
parameters 15.15. the unknown term, F.
through
The control law of the differential flatness-based control (See Figure 15a) has the in-
verse dynamic equation, which contains the system models including Rs, Ld, Lq, and Ψm.
In contrast, the control law of the model-free control (See Figure 15b) estimated all the
system parameters through the unknown term, F.

(a) (b)

Figure 15. The difference between (a) the differential flatness-based control law and (b) the model-free
control law.

(a) (b)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 19 of 21

The control law of the differential flatness-based control (See Figure 15a) has the
inverse dynamic equation, which contains the system models including Rs , Ld , Lq , and
Ψm . In contrast, the control law of the model-free control (See Figure 15b) estimated all the
system parameters through the unknown term, F.
As a more concise summary, Table 3 shows a comparison of the advantages of tradi-
tional FOC+PI, differential flatness-based control, and model-free control.

Table 3. Comparison of three different control techniques applied to the PMa-SynRM drive system.

FOC + PI Controller Differential Flatness-Based Control Model-Free Control

- More effective with a nonlinear motor
- More suitable for a linear motor drive drive system
system - Model-based control system - Tailored for the control of unknown or
- Design controller coefficient using - Control performance depending on partially known systems
Laplace transform system parameters - Partially known parameters
- Control performance depending on - Performance enhancement using (inductance for current control)
system parameters observer
- Require more computation resources

6. Conclusions
In this study, we analyzed the application of an MFC for the current and speed
control of motor drives. This novel control approach was applied to PMa-SynRMs for the
combined control of the outer speed control loop and inner current control loop. After a
brief introduction of the MFC fundamentals, the design approach was comprehensively
described, providing a step-by-step procedure. Suggestions for extending the design to
different drive controllers were also provided. Simulations and numerous experimental
results highlighted the promising features and characteristics of MFC applied to electrical
motor drives. Finally, the potential of MFC pointed out in this study should stimulate
further exploration and analysis of this type of controller to achieve the expertise required
to transfer the results to practical applications.
Interestingly, the proposed MFC provided high performance for the PMa-SynRM
drives compared to FOC with the traditional PI controller. Besides, it had a higher dynamic
performance than the PMa-SynRM drive using the differential flatness-based control.
In this study, the simulation and the experimental validation were performed by a
prototype PMa-SynRM at GREEN Lab, Université de Lorraine. This machine can operate in
constant torque and constant power regions if a proper field weakening control is applied.
In summary, by applying MFC, the performance of the PMa-SynRM was improved not only
in terms of the inner current control loop but also the outer speed control loop. Moreover,
the controller coefficients of the proposed MFC are not complicated to define, and a unique
design approach can be applied for the PMa-SynRM drive.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.N.-M. and N.T.; methodology, S.S., N.P. and P.T.; vali-
dation, S.S., N.P. and P.T.; formal analysis, N.B. and P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, P.T.;
writing—review and editing, N.B.; visualization, N.B.; supervision, B.N.-M. and N.T. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported in part by the Framework Agreement between the University
of Pitesti (Romania) and King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok (Thailand), in
part by an International Research Partnership “Electrical Engineering–Thai French Research Center
(EE-TFRC)” under the project framework Lorraine Université d’Excellence (LUE) in cooperation with
Université de Lorraine and King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok and in part by
the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) under Senior Research Scholar Program, Grant
No. N42A640328, and in part by King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok under
Grant no. KMUTNB-64-KNOW-20.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 20 of 21

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the GREEN laboratory at the
University of Lorraine and King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok (KMUTNB) for
their constant support in boosting collaborations between France and Thailand. Besides, the authors
would like to express their gratitude to the Rajamangala University of Technology Rattanakosin
Wang Klai Kangwon Campus as an original agency of the first author (A25/2021).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sadeghi, Z.; Shahparasti, M.; Rajaei, A.; Laaksonen, H. Three-Level Reduced Switch AC/DC/AC Power Conversion System for
High Voltage Electric Vehicles. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1620. [CrossRef]
2. Krings, A.; Monissen, C. Review and Trends in Electric Traction Motors for Battery Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. In Proceedings
of the 2020 International Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM), Gothenburg, Sweden, 23–26 August 2020. [CrossRef]
3. Husain, I.; Ozpineci, B.; Islam, M.; Gurpinar, E.; Su, G.; Yu, W.; Chowdhury, S.; Xue, L.; Rahman, D.; Sahu, R. Electric Drive
Technology Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities for Future Electric Vehicles. Proc. IEEE 2021, 109, 1039–1059. [CrossRef]
4. Lukic, M.; Giangrande, P.; Hebala, A.; Nuzzo, S.; Galea, M. Review, Challenges, and Future Developments of Electric Taxiing
Systems. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2019, 5, 1441–1457. [CrossRef]
5. Rahrovi, B.; Ehsani, M. A Review of the More Electric Aircraft Power Electronics. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Texas Power
and Energy Conference (TPEC), College Station, TX, USA, 7–8 February 2019. [CrossRef]
6. Noland, J.K.; Leandro, M.; Suul, J.A.; Molinas, M. High-Power Machines and Starter-Generator Topologies for More Electric
Aircraft: A Technology Outlook. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 130104–130123. [CrossRef]
7. Tang, M.; Bifaretti, S.; Pipolo, S.; Formentini, A.; Odhano, S.; Zanchetta, P. A Novel Low Computational Burden Dual-Observer
Phase-Locked Loop with Strong Disturbance Rejection Capability for More Electric Aircraft. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2021, 57,
3832–3841. [CrossRef]
8. Ooi, S.; Morimoto, S.; Sanada, M.; Inoue, Y. Performance Evaluation of a High-Power-Density PMASynRM with Ferrite Magnets.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2013, 49, 1308–1315. [CrossRef]
9. Trancho, E.; Ibarra, E.; Arias, A.; Kortabarria, I.; Jurrgens, J.; Marengo, L.; Fricasse, A.; Gragger, J.V. PM-Assisted Synchronous
Reluctance Machine Flux Weakening Control for EV and HEV Applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 65, 2986–2995.
[CrossRef]
10. Capecchi, E.; Guglielmi, P.; Pastorelli, M.; Vagati, A. Position-sensorless control of the transverse-laminated synchronous
reluctance motor. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2001, 37, 1768–1776. [CrossRef]
11. Niazi, P. Permanent Magnet Assisted Synchronous Reluctance Motor Design and Performance Improvement. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas
A & M University, College Station, TX, USA, 2005.
12. Joo, K.; Kim, I.; Lee, J.; Go, S. Robust Speed Sensorless Control to Estimated Error for PMa-SynRM. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2017, 53,
1–4. [CrossRef]
13. Sriprang, S.; Poonnoy, N.; Guilbert, D.; Nahid-Mobarakeh, B.; Takorabet, N.; Bizon, N.; Thounthong, P. Design, Modeling, and
Differential Flatness Based Control of Permanent Magnet-Assisted Synchronous Reluctance Motor for e-Vehicle Applications.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 9502. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Liu, R.; Yang, L.; Wang, X. Modulated Model-Free Predictive Control with Minimum Switching Losses for PMSM
Drive System. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 20942–20953. [CrossRef]
15. Lin, C.-K.; Agustin, C.A.; Yu, J.-T.; Cheng, Y.-S.; Chen, F.-M.; Lai, Y.-S. A Modulated Model-Free Predictive Current Control for
Four-Switch Three-Phase Inverter-Fed SynRM Drive Systems. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 162984–162995. [CrossRef]
16. Lyu, Z.; Wu, X.; Gao, J.; Tan, G. An Improved Finite-Control-Set Model Predictive Current Control for IPMSM under Model
Parameter Mismatches. Energies 2021, 14, 6342. [CrossRef]
17. Hashjin, S.A.; Pang, S.; Miliani, E.-H.; Ait-Abderrahim, K.; Nahid-Mobarakeh, B. Data-Driven Model-Free Adaptive Current
Control of a Wound Rotor Synchronous Machine Drive System. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2020, 6, 1146–1156. [CrossRef]
18. Precup, R.-E.; Radac, M.-B.; Roman, R.-C.; Petriu, E.M. Model-free sliding mode control of nonlinear systems: Algorithms and
experiments. Inf. Sci. 2017, 381, 176–192. [CrossRef]
19. Sriprang, S.; Nahid-Mobarakeh, B.; Takorabet, N.; Pierfederici, S.; Mungporn, P.; Thounthong, P.; Bizon, N.; Kuman, P.; Shah, Z.
Model Free-Based Torque Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Drives. In Proceedings of the 2019 Research,
Invention, and Innovation Congress (RI2C), Bangkok, Thailand, 11–13 December 2019. [CrossRef]
20. Fliess, M.; Join, C. Model-free control. Int. J. Control 2013, 86, 2228–2252. [CrossRef]
21. Fliess, M.; Join, C. Stability margins and model-free control: A first look. In Proceedings of the 2014 European Control Conference
(ECC), Strasbourg, France, 24–27 June 2014. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5423 21 of 21

22. Battiston, A.; Miliani, E.-H.; Martin, J.-P.; Nahid-Mobarakeh, B.; Pierfederici, S.; Meibody-Tabar, F. A Control Strategy for Electric
Traction Systems Using a PM-Motor Fed by a Bidirectional $Z$-Source Inverter. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2014, 63, 4178–4191.
[CrossRef]
23. Thounthong, P.; Sikkabut, S.; Poonnoy, N.; Mungporn, P.; Yodwong, B.; Kumam, P.; Bizon, N.; Pierfederici, S.; Poonnoi, N.;
Nahidmobarakeh, B. Nonlinear Differential Flatness-Based Speed/Torque Control with State-Observers of Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Motor Drives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2018, 54, 2874–2884. [CrossRef]
24. Fliess, M.; Sira–Ramírez, H. An algebraic framework for linear identification. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 2003, 9, 151–168.
[CrossRef]
25. Fliess, M.; Sira-Ramírez, H. Closed-loop Parametric Identification for Continuous-time Linear Systems via New Algebraic
Techniques. In Identification of Continuous-Time Models from Sampled Data; Part of the Advances in Industrial Control Book Series
(AIC); Springer: London, UK, 2008; pp. 363–391. [CrossRef]
26. Sriprang, S.; Nahid-Mobarakeh, B.; Takorabet, N.; Pierfederici, S.; Kumam, P.; Bizon, N.; Taghavi, N.; Vahedi, A.; Mungporn, P.;
Thounthong, P. Design and control of permanent magnet assisted synchronous reluctance motor with copper loss minimization
using MTPA. J. Electr. Eng. 2020, 71, 11–19. [CrossRef]