energies

Article
Research on Model Predictive Control of IPMSM
Based on Adaline Neural Network
Parameter Identification
Lihui Wang, Guojun Tan * and Jie Meng
School of Electrical and Power Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116,
China; [email protected] (L.W.); [email protected] (J.M.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-138-0521-9335




Received: 22 October 2019; Accepted: 12 December 2019; Published: 17 December 2019


Abstract: This paper reports the optimal control problem on the interior permanent magnet
synchronous motor (IPMSM) systems. The control performance of the traditional model predictive
control (MPC) controller is ruined due to the parameter uncertainty and mismatching. In order to
solve the problem that the MPC algorithm has a large dependence on system parameters, a method
which integrates MPC control method and parameter identification for IPMSM is proposed. In this
method, the d-q axis inductances and rotor permanent magnet flux of IPMSM motor are identified by
the Adaline neural network algorithm, and then, the identification results are applied to the predictive
controller and maximum torque per ampere (MTPA) module. The experimental results show that the
optimized MPC control proposed in this paper has a good steady state and robust performance.

Keywords: interior permanent magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM); optimal control; model
predictive control (MPC); maximum torque per ampere (MTPA); parameter mismatch; parameter
identification; Adaline neural network; control performance

1. Introduction
IPMSM has been extensively utilized in the fields of electromechanical drives, servo systems,
and automotive industry due to its strong reliability, high efficiency, high power density, and a large
torque-ampere ratio [1,2]. In order to achieve excellent performance of both dynamic and steady-state
current control, many researches focused on the control algorithms of IPMSM, and the most common
control algorithms are hysteresis control, proportional-integral (PI) control [3], MPC [4,5], and nonlinear
control [6].
Among all these control algorithms, hysteresis control has many advantages such as quick current
responses, good robustness, and simple algorithm implementation. However, large current ripple and
variable switching frequency are difficult to be avoided. The PI control algorithm has advantages such
as high steady-state control precision and fixed switching frequency. However, for PI-based current
double closed-loop IPMSM control system, the method of setting PI parameters is too complicated [7,8].
In our case, first, considering the IPMSM double closed-loop control system, which is often regarded
as a linear continuous system. The method of numerical analysis and calculation in the continuous
domain can be used to adjust the PI parameters, but it requires complex theoretical derivation and
mathematical calculation. Second, for the PI controller, although the method of system analysis in
the s domain is simple, it needs to be regarded as a continuous module. However, the commonly
used PI controllers are digital modules programmed in digital processors analyzed in discrete domain,
so only when the sampling frequency is high enough relative to the system working frequency,
can IPMSM double closed-loop control system get good control effect. With the development and

Energies 2019, 12, 4803; doi:10.3390/en12244803 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 4803 2 of 16

application of microprocessors, new control algorithms have been extensively studied, including
predictive control and nonlinear control. Physical systems are inherently nonlinear. Thus, all control
systems are nonlinear to a certain extent. Considering the nonlinear characteristics of the system,
common nonlinear control strategies such as sliding mode control [9,10], adaptive control [9,11] and
intelligent control [12,13] are proposed. These nonlinear control strategies can improve the dynamic
and static performance and the robustness of the system in different ways. But at the same time, the
above algorithm increases the complexity of the control system without exception, and increases the
amount of calculation, which brings obstacles to practical applications. However, if the operating range
of a control system is small and the involved nonlinearities are smooth, then the control system can be
reasonably approximated by a linearized system. MPC algorithm [14–16] shows a better steady-state
and dynamic performance compared to hysteresis control algorithm and PI control algorithm, and its
calculation is relatively simpler compared to nonlinear control. MPC has attracted many relevant
researchers to conduct their work on it, and its related technology has become a hot research direction.
MPC is gradually applied to power electronic systems because of its fast transient current response,
easily modeling and multivariable constraint control capability. The MPC is mainly divided into
continuous control set-MPC (CCS-MPC) and discrete state limited control set MPC (FCS-MPC) [17].
The main difference between the two algorithms is whether the control system requires a modulation
unit. Compared with CCS-MPC, FCS-MPC does not need pulse width modulation (PWM) modulator,
and it does not need to comprehensively consider the prediction time domain, control time domain,
and the coordination design of weight coefficients of each time domain objective function. The key
of FCS-MPC is to directly utilize the inherent discrete characteristics and the switch state of power
converter. It can also solve the introduced problems including torque ripple and large current harmonic
in FCS-MPC in some ways [9,11]. These significant advantages make it a hot topic in the research of
predictive control of power electronic system models, and it has to be the best alternative to traditional
current loop based on PI regulator. Compared with the traditional vector control, FCS-MPC has the
advantages of simpler control structure, excellent dynamic response, no need of current inner loop
controller and no PWM modulator, it has developed rapidly in the field of motor speed regulation.
This paper is based on the direct current control FCS-MPC method.
However, there are unavoidable challenges in MPC systems, when the model parameters are
mismatched, the control effect will be ruined. MPC relies heavily on accurate IPMSM mathematical
model, which means that the disturbance of motor parameters and the delay of the digital control system
would deteriorate the tracking performance of the stator current [4], while the performance of current
control is the key factor to the whole IPMSM control system. Many novel methods have been drawn
out to solve the problems mentioned above. In [18,19], a motor parameter disturbance compensation
method based on sliding-model disturbance observer is presented, which can effectively improve the
dynamic performance of stator currents and eliminate its steady-state error. However, the disadvantage
is that the design process is complicated, the calculation amount is large, and the differentiation of the
state variables is required in the calculation process, which leads to the amplification of the noise signal.
The various methods discussed above are based on parameters disturbance observation to solve
the problem of poor robustness caused by parameters mismatch during the operation of motor control
system. Moreover, the suppression of parameter disturbance and ability of reference current value
tracking could be improved from the perspective of parameter identification. Off-line and online
identification are two common types of parameter identification methods. The values of off-line
parameter identification cannot track the changes of motor parameters in real time [20]. Compared with
the off-line identification method, the online identification method of motor parameters not only
estimates the state values of the motor in real time but also apply the values to the fault diagnosis
method of the motor. For IPMSM, recursive least squares algorithm [21,22], model reference adaptive
algorithm [23–25], extended Kalman filter algorithm [26,27], and neural network algorithm [28–31] are
the most common online identification algorithms. The recursive least squares algorithm is often used in
practice. Its structure is simple and unbiased estimation can be achieved. However, matrix calculation is
Energies 2019, 12, 4803 3 of 16

complicated and difficult to realize. Kalman filtering algorithm can accurately observe the state variables
and model parameters of the system and only requires low accuracy of input variables [26,27]. However,
the algorithm is complex, and many intermediate variables need to be stored to meet the requirements
of the algorithm, which requires high computing power of the processor. In [28,29], a dynamic learning
estimator is proposed for tracking the electrical parameters of permanent magnet synchronous motor
drive by using particle swarm optimization (PSO). However, the structure of PSO is complicated.
In [32], a novel non-linear mapping-based feedback technique for controlling chaotic permanent magnet
synchronous motor using dynamic surface control, neural approximation and parameter identification
is proposed. In [33], a novel approach of speed control for a permanent magnet synchronous motor
using on-line self-tuning artificial neural network is proposed. However, the algorithms used in [32,33]
are non-linear neural network, which requires a large amount of calculation. In [30,31], the permanent
magnet flux linkage is estimated by an Adaline neural network. It is a linearly adjustable network,
only contains simple addition, subtraction and multiplication calculations, so it is very suitable for
parameter identification applications. However, in [30,31], only one parameter was identified based on
Adaline neural network and the result had not applied in the motor vector control system. In order to
improve the speed control performance of IPMSM system with the predictive current control strategy
and MTPA method, this paper combines the parameter identification method with the MPC strategy,
which can effectively suppress the effect caused by parameter perturbation. Due to the under-rank
of the motor parameter identification matrix, the inductances and flux linkage of the motor cannot
be estimated simultaneously. Thus, a step-by-step parameter identification method based on Adaline
neural network is proposed to estimate parameters of IPMSM in this paper. And the results are applied
into the FCS-MPC controller and MTPA model [34,35]. Finally, experimental results demonstrate that,
compared with the traditional FCS-MPC algorithm, the proposed optimal FCS-MPC algorithm has
better performance of steady-state current tracking.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the mathematical model of the
IPMSM and analysis of the traditional model predictive current control based on MTPA are introduced.
In Section 3, the design of optimal MPC method combined with Adaline neural network parameter
identification is presented. In Section 4, the experimental results conducted on a digital control system
is presented. In Section 5, the conclusion of this paper is presented.

2. Predictive Control of IPMSM

2.1. Mathematical Model of the IPMSM

The IPMSM is a multi-variable, non-linear and strongly coupled system. The voltage equations of
IPMSM in synchronous rotating frame are shown in Equation (1) [36,37].

 ud = Rid + Ld dt id − ωe Lq iq

 d
(1)
 uq = Riq + Lq d iq + ωe (Ld id + ψ f )


dt

where id and iq are, respectively, the d- and q-axis currents; ud and uq are, respectively, the d- and q-axis
stator voltages; Ld and Lq are, respectively, the d- and q-axis stator inductance of the stator windings;
R is the stator resistance; Ψf is the permanent magnet flux linkage; and ωe is rotor electrical angular
velocity (rad/s).
The mechanical model of a IPMSM system can be expressed as follows:

3 h i
Te = np iq id (Ld − Lq ) + ψ f (2)
2
dωm
J = Te − TL − Bωm (3)
dt
Energies 2019, 12, 4803 4 of 16

where ωm is the rotor mechanical angular velocity, J is the moment of inertia, Te is the electromagnetic
torque, TL is the load torque, B is the friction coefficient, np is the number of pole pairs. The relation
between the rotor mechanical angular velocity and rotor electrical angular velocity is given by:

ωe = np ωm (4)

As for IPMSM, Lq > Ld is valid, in order to minimize the output current while obtaining maximum
electromagnetic torque; the MTPA control method is often used to effectively utilize the reluctance
torque. The relationship between id and iq is:
v
ψ2f
u
ψf
t
id = − + i2q (5)
2(Lq − Ld ) 4(Lq − Ld )2

Equations (2) and (5) indicate that both id and iq are non-zero when the motor is operating on load.
The discrete equations of the motor running in steady state from Equation (1) can be simplified as:

ud (k) = Rid (k) − ωe (k)Lq iq (k)

(
(6)
uq (k) = Riq (k) + ωe (k)Ld id (k) + ωe (k)ψ f

where k is the sampling moment.

The steady-state voltage equation of the motor is an under-ranking system with two equations
and four unknown parameters (R, Ld , Lq , Ψf ). Since the back EMF generated by the stator winding can
balance the supply voltage, the stator current produces a very small voltage drop across the winding
resistance. Therefore, when the stator resistance changes, the influence on the system is very small.
Moreover, if the stator resistance is estimated, the under-rank problem of the identification equation
will be further increased. Therefore, ignoring the influence of the stator resistance, this paper only
estimates the d-q axis inductances and the rotor permanent magnet flux linkage. The step-by-step and
cycle update method is used to estimate the motor parameters.

2.2. Design of FCS-MPC for IPMSM

By using a rotating d-q reference frame oriented to the rotor magnetic field axis, a double loop
of feedback has been adopted that makes control and scheduling better for synchronous designing
and running. In this way, the machine control is implemented as a current control scheme, where the
current references are generated by the external speed control loop. The model of the machine is used
for predicting the behavior of the stator currents, and the cost function considers the error between the
reference currents and predictive currents.
When the sampling period of control system is sufficiently short, the discrete time model of
IPMSM can be obtained by a first-order Euler expansion, and the expressions of the stator current in
the d-q synchronous rotating frame can be described as Equation (7):

Lq Ts ωe

RTs Ts
 id (k + 1) = (1 − Ld )id (k) + Ld iq (k) + Ld ud (k)



RT L Tω Ts ψ f ωe Ts (7)
 iq (k + 1) = (1 − Lqs )iq (k) + d Lqs e id (k) +

Lq uq (k) −


Lq

where Ts is the sampling period.

For the current predictive control strategy, the sum of the squared errors between d-q axis
predictive currents, and the reference current is usually used as a cost function, which can be described
as Equation (8):
2 2
g = idre f − id (k + 1) + iq re f − iq (k + 1) (8)

where idref and iqref are the d-axis and q-axis reference currents, and id (k + 1) and iq (k + 1) are predicted
current values of d-q axis component of stator current at k + 1 time period under given voltage vector.
predictive currents, and the reference current is usually used as a cost function, which can be
described as Equation (8):
2 2
g = id ref − id ( k + 1) + iq ref − iq ( k + 1) (8)

Energies id
where 2019, 12, 4803 5 of 16
ref and iqref are the d-axis and q-axis reference currents, and id(k + 1) and iq(k + 1) are predicted

current values of d-q axis component of stator current at k + 1 time period under given voltage
vector.
The block diagram of the FOC scheme of IPMSM using proposed FCS-MPC is shown in Figure 1.
The block
As shown diagrammethod,
in proposed of the FOC scheme
the speed of IPMSM
loop usingbyproposed
is controlled FCS-MPC
a traditional is shown
PI controller, andinaccurate
Figure
1. As shown
tracking in proposed
of stator current ismethod, the speed
accomplished loop is controlled
by FCS-MPC controller.by a traditional PI controller, and
accurate tracking of stator current is accomplished by FCS-MPC controller.
Udc
+ -

Te idref sa
nref + PI MTPA iqref MPC sb
n - model Inverter
sc

ia
dq
id, iq abc ib
ic

30/pi IPMSM
wm

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Control diagram of
Control diagram of discrete
discretestate
statelimited
limitedcontrol
controlset–model
set–model predictive
predictive control
control (FCS-MPC)
(FCS-MPC) for
for interior permanent magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM)
interior permanent magnet synchronous motor (IPMSM) drives. drives.

where, ia, ib, iand

Where, a , ib , iand
c areic a-phase,
are a-phase, b-phase,
b-phase, andand c-phase
c-phase stator
stator currents,
currents, respectively,and
respectively, andthethe state
state
definitions for
definitions for each arm are as follows. Saa,, SSbb, ,and andSSc care
arethetheswitching
switchingstates
statesof
ofthe
thethree
threebridge
bridgearms,
arms,
respectively. When
respectively. When the value of Saa,, SSbb,,or orSSccisisequal
equalto to1,1,the
thecorresponding
correspondingbridge
bridgearm armisis in
in the
the open
open
state. Conversely,
state. Conversely, the the bridge
bridge arm
arm is
is in
in the close state when the value of Saa,, SSbb, ,or
the close orSSc cisisequal
equaltoto0.0.
When control
When controlschemes schemesbasedbasedononFCS-MPC
FCS-MPC are adopted,
are adopted, a large
a number of calculations
large number are required,
of calculations are
introducing a considerable time delay in the actuation. This delay will
required, introducing a considerable time delay in the actuation. This delay will deteriorate the deteriorate the performance
of the systemof
performance if not
the considered
system if not in the design ofinthe
considered thecontroller.
design of Athe simple solution
controller. to compensate
A simple solutionthis to
delay is to take
compensate thisinto
delay account of the
is to take calculation
into account of time
theand apply the
calculation selected
time switching
and apply state after
the selected the next
switching
sampling
state afterinstant.
the next The model
samplingpredictive control
instant. Thealgorithm with delay compensation
model predictive control algorithm can bewith
represented
delay
as the flowchart
compensation can presented in Figure
be represented 2. flowchart presented in Figure 2.
as the
In Figure 2, m is the intermediate variable, which is set to judge whether the system is sampling
for the first time. When the system is initialized and started, m = 0 is set. At this time, the system has
not calculated the optimal voltage vector; zero voltage vector is applied, and m = 1 is set. During the
operation of the system, m = 1 is kept, and the optimal voltage vector provided by the predictive
controller can be applied. Moreover, x, from 1 to 8, represents eight switch states of two-level inverter,
namely, 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, and 111. When the upper bridge arm is turned on and the
lower bridge arm is turned off, it is expressed as 1. Otherwise, when the upper bridge arm is turned off
and the lower bridge arm is turned on, it is expressed as 0.
The output voltages of the inverter, in PWM forms, cannot be measured directly. For the IPMSM
vector control system based on traditional PI controller, the outputs of the PI controllers in current loop
are usually approximated to the actual input voltages ud and uq of IPMSM.

Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 4803 6 of 16
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

Startup

m=0

Measure i(k)

Yes
m=0
No Apply zero
Apply optimal voltage vector
vector v(k)
m=1
Wait for next Calculate id(k+1) and
sampling instant iq(k+1) values

x=0

x=x+1

No
x<=8
Yes

Calculate id(k+2) and iq(k+2) values

Calculate the cost function(g) value

Store optimal values

Figure 2. Flowchart of the predictive current control with delay compensation.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the predictive current control with delay compensation.
However, the traditional current PI controller is alternated by FCS-MPC controller in IPMSM
In Figure
predictive 2, msystem.
control is the intermediate
In order to obtainvariable, which isvalues
the effective set to judge whether
of ud and the system
uq , it can is sampling
be reconstructed by
for the first time. When the system is initialized and started, m = 0 is set. At
DC bus voltage Udc , inverter switching state, and rotor position electrical angle θ. The equation this time, the system has is
not calculated the
shown in Equation (9): optimal voltage vector; zero voltage vector is applied, and m = 1 is set. During the
operation of the system, m = 1 is kept, and the optimal voltage vector provided by the predictive
controller can be applied. Udc
 UAN =Moreover,

x, from 1 to 8, represents eight switch states of two-level

 3 (2Sa − Sb − Sc )
inverter, namely, 000, 
 001, 010, Udc011, 100, 101, 110, and 111. When the upper bridge arm is turned on
BN = 3 (2Sb − Sa − Sc )
 U


and the lower bridge 
 arm is turned off, it is expressed as 1. Otherwise, when the upper bridge arm is
Udc

(9)

turned off and the lower 

 U = ( 2S
bridge3 armc is
CN Sa − Sb )on, it is expressed as 0.
− turned

3 (UAN cos θ + UBN cos(θ − 3 ) + cannot (θ +
The output voltages  ud = of 2 the inverter, in PWM forms, 2π 2π
UCN cosbe measured
3 )) directly. For the




IPMSM vector control  usystem 2 based on traditional PI controller, the outputs 2π of the PI controllers in

q = 3 (−UAN sin θ + UBN sin(θ − 3 ) + UCN sin(θ + 3 ))
 2π
current loop are usually approximated to the actual input voltages ud and uq of IPMSM.
where UAN , UBN
However, , and
the UCN arecurrent
traditional the phase-to-neutral
PI controller isvoltage of the
alternated FCS-MPCUdc
byinverter. is DC bus
controller in voltage,
IPMSM
and θ is thecontrol
predictive rotor position
system. electrical
In order to angle.
obtain the effective values of ud and uq, it can be reconstructed
by DC bus voltage
However, of ud and
Udc, inverter
the values uq , obtained
switching state,from
andEquation
rotor position
(7), areelectrical
in the PWM angle θ. The
forms, equation
which containis
shown in Equation
large numbers (9):
of high-order harmonics and cannot be used in parameter identification algorithm.
An effective solution to obtain the effective values of ud and uq of the inverter is to make the voltages
pass through low-pass filters.

Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 4803 7 of 16

3. FCS-MPC of IPMSM Based on Parameter Identification

3.1. Online Parameter Identification Strategy

In order to identify the d-axis inductance, q-axis inductance and rotor permanent magnet flux
linkage of IPMSM simultaneously, the rank of the identification coefficient matrix of motor parameters
must be greater than or equal to three. However, the maximum rank of the coefficient matrix of the
steady-state operation of the motor is two. Two methods are usually adopted to solve the under-rank
problem. The first is to obtain the multi-group operation state of the motor by injecting current
signal, thereby increasing the rank of identification equations. The second is to divide the parameter
identification system into different parts and identify them alternately. However, the first method has
some limitations; a fixed current vector will be generated in the motor, which will cause torque ripple,
affecting the control accuracy and running quality of the system. The identification accuracy is also
heavily dependent on the quality of the injected current signal.
With the MTPA control method, when the motor is running in steady state, Equation (1) is
rewritten as the following matrix form:
 
" # " # Ld 
ud (k) − Rid (k) 0 −ωe (k)iq (k) 0 
 Lq

=  (10)
uq (k) − Riq (k) ω e ( k ) id ( k ) 0 ωe (k)  
ψf


Φ is defined as the coefficient matrix of motor parameter identification.

" #
0 −ωe (k)iq (k) 0
φ= (11)
ωe (k)id (k) 0 ωe ( k )

The first and third columns of matrix Φ are linearly correlated. Therefore, it is impossible to
identify the d-q axis inductances and permanent magnet flux linkage of IPMSM simultaneously.
In order to solve the above problem, the parameters of the motor were estimated by the step-by-step
identification strategy in this paper.
Through the above analysis, the IPMSM motor parameters can be identified by step-by-step
identification strategy proposed in this paper. Considering the under-rank problem of the motor
parameter identification matrix, the motor parameters are usually divided into several groups
depending on the motor parameters’ changing speed, in which a part of the motor parameters are set
to known values, and then, the parameter identification algorithm is used to estimate the remaining
parameters. Based on the identification result, the original set parameters values are identified in the
next step, so that all parameters of the motor can be identified and cyclically updated by the method
proposed in this paper.

3.2. Adaline Neural Network Identification Method

In this paper, the Adaline neural network algorithm is used to identify the motor parameters. It is
a linearly adjustable network, which is very similar to the single layer perceptron [38], except that the
functions of creating neural networks are different. It has the characteristics that the network weight
and threshold can be directly obtained by using the design function without training, and the output
of the network layer can take any value, overcoming disadvantages of the output of the perceptron
neural network which can only be 0 or 1. Therefore, it is suitable for the fields of adaptive filtering,
prediction and model recognition in signal processing. By observing its excitation function and weight
function, we can find that its expression only contains simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication
calculations and does not contain matrix calculation or division calculation. The calculation amount is
small, and there is only one adjustable parameter (step size), which makes it easy to adjust compared
with nonlinear neural network [32,33]. Combining the above advantages, the Adaline neural network
identification method is selected in this paper.
output of the network layer can take any value, overcoming disadvantages of the output of the
perceptron neural network which can only be 0 or 1. Therefore, it is suitable for the fields of adaptive
filtering, prediction and model recognition in signal processing. By observing its excitation function
and weight function, we can find that its expression only contains simple addition, subtraction, and
multiplication calculations and does not contain matrix calculation or division calculation. The
Energies 2019, 12, 4803 8 of 16
calculation amount is small, and there is only one adjustable parameter (step size), which makes it
easy to adjust compared with nonlinear neural network [32,33]. Combining the above advantages,
the Adaline neural of
The principle network identification
parameter method
identification is selected
of Adaline in this
neural paper.is as follows:
network
The principle
First, of parameter
the network structureidentification
matching theofcontrol
Adaline neural
system is network
selected, isand
as follows:
the input variables are
takenFirst,
into the
the network structure
neural network matching
identifier. the according
Then, control system
to theisoutput
selected, and
error the input
between the variables are
identification
taken
systemintooutputtheandneural network
the network identifier.
output, Then,
combined withaccording
the weighttoconvergence
the outputalgorithm,
error between the
the network
identification
weight correction system output and
is performed the network
to realize output,
the online combined
parameter with the weight convergence
identification.
algorithm, the network
The structure weight
diagram correction
of Adaline is performed
neural network to realize
is as thein
follows online
Figureparameter
3: identification.
The structure diagram of Adaline neural network is as follows in Figure 3:
W1 d(k)
X1
W2 +
X2 O(k) -
... Wi
Xi W3
Wn
...

Xn

LMS
algorithm

Figure3.
Figure Thestructure
3.The structureof
ofAdaline
Adalineneural
neuralnetwork.
network.

Itsexcitation
Its excitation function
function is:
is:
n
X
O ( W i , Xi ) = n Wi Xi (12)
O (Wi , X i ) =i=
0 Wi X i (12)
i=0
where Wi is the weight of the neural network, Xi is the network input signal, and O(Wi , Xi ) is the
where
outputW ofi is the weight
excitation of theofneural
function network, Xi is the network input signal, and O(Wi, Xi) is the
the network.
output of weight
The excitation functionalgorithm
adjustment of the network.
of the network when the least mean square (LMS) algorithm is
usedThe
is: weight adjustment algorithm of the network when the least mean square (LMS) algorithm
i k + 1) = Wi (k) + 2ηXi ε(k)
(
is used is: W (
(13)
ε(k ) = d(k ) − O(k )
where d(k) is the network target output, {W (k +1) = W (k ) + 2η X ε (k )
i
ε (k η) =is dthe
the neural network output and the target output.
i
(kweight
) − O(kadjustment
)
i
size, and ε(k) is the error between(13)

whereWhen the
d(k) is motor
the parameters
network target output, η is theby
are estimated the Adaline
weight neuralsize,
adjustment and εalgorithm,
network (k) is the error q , and Ψf
Ld , Lbetween
are regarded as the weights of the network,
the neural network output and the target output. and the values of the motor parameters can be obtained by
weight calculation. In order to ensure the convergence of the algorithm, η in Equation (13) needs to
satisfy the following relationship [31]:
Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
2
0 < 2η X(k) < 1 (14)

In the above algorithm, the real gradient is replaced by the estimated gradient. The correlation
matrix and the inverse matrix are not needed, which makes the computation speed faster. When the
convergence factor is selected properly, the stability and rapidity of the identification system can be
guaranteed simultaneously.
In this paper, an on-line parameter identification method of IPMSM based on Adaline neural
network is proposed. The motor parameters are identified in four steps. First, when the motor rotor is
in a static state, the stator resistance is measured by injecting d-axis current. Second, when the motor is
started, the resistance value in the voltage equation is set to static measurement value, and the q-axis
inductance is estimated. Third, the permanent magnet flux linkage and the d-axis inductance are
identified. Finally, the motor parameters are cyclically updated. It is assumed that the stator resistance
remains constant. According to the motor torque equation, d-axis inductance, q-axis inductance,
Energies 2019, 12, 4803 9 of 16

and rotor flux linkage of IPMSM can be obtained, respectively. The identification equations are as
follows: 


 XLq (k) = −ωe (k)iq (k)

 OLq (k) = Lq (k)XLq (k)


(15)
dLq (k) = Ud (k) − Rid (k)





 L (k + 1) = L (k) + 2η X (k)ε (k)

q q Lq Lq Lq

XLd (k) = ωe (k)id (k)






 OLd (k) = Ld (k)XLd (k)


(16)
dLd (k) = Uq (k) − ωe (k)ψ f − Riq (k)




Ld (k + 1) = Ld (k) + 2ηLd XLd (k)εLd (k)




Xψ f ( k ) = ω e ( k )




 Oψ f (k) = ψ f (k)Xψ f (k)



(17)
dψ f (k) = Uq (k) − Riq (k) − ωe (k)Ld id (k)





ψ f (k + 1) = ψ f (k) + 2ηψ f Xψ f (k)εψ f (k)



where, Ud and Uq are the effective values of ud and uq.

The model predictive control block diagram of IPMSM based on parameter identification with
Energies 2019,
Adaline 12, xnetwork
neural FOR PEERisREVIEW
shown in Figure 4. 10 of 16

Udc
+ -

idref sa
nref + PI Te MTPA iqref MPC sb
n - model Inverter
sc

Ld, Lq, Ψf
Ud ud
Parameters Voltage
Uq Filter uq
reconstruction
identifier
id, iq ia
dq ic
abc ib

wm
30/π IPMSM

Figure 4. Block diagram of IPMSM parameter identification based on FCS-MPC.

Figure 4. Block diagram of IPMSM parameter identification based on FCS-MPC.
4. Experimental Results Analysis
4. Experimental Results Analysis
In order to verify the effectiveness of the model predictive control algorithm based on parameter
In ordermentioned
identification to verify in the
thiseffectiveness of the model
paper, an experimental predictive
platform is builtcontrol
based onalgorithm based
TI 2812 DSP on
chip
parameter identification mentioned in this paper, an experimental platform is
(Texas Instruments, Dallas, USA) for experiment. The parameters of the IPMSM motor are listed in built based on TI
2812 DSP chip (Texas Instruments, Dallas, USA) for experiment. The parameters of
Table 1. In the practical experiment, the crude estimation values are defined as the true parameters of the IPMSM
motor are
IPMSM (Ld0listed in Table
, Lq0 , and 1. In the
Ψf0 ), which arepractical
utilized experiment, the under
for experiments crude parameter
estimation mismatch
values areconditions.
defined as
the true parameters of IPMSM (Ld0, Lq0, and Ψf0 ), which are utilized for experiments under
parameter mismatch conditions.

Table 1. Parameters of the IPMSM.

Parameter Value
Armature resistance 0.1 Ω
d-axis inductance 0.95 mH
q-axis inductance 2.05 mH
Flux linkage 0.225 Wb
Pole pairs 4
Rated power 60 kW
 Energies 2019, 12, 4803 10 of 16

Table 1. Parameters of the IPMSM.

Parameter Value
Armature resistance 0.1 Ω
d-axis inductance 0.95 mH
q-axis inductance 2.05 mH
Flux linkage 0.225 Wb
Pole pairs 4
Rated power 60 kW

The experimental platform is constructed by TI processor, which is mainly composed of two

IPMSMs, one rectifier, two inverters, and three controllers. The experimental platform is shown in
Figure 5. Sampling frequency of the control system is set to 10 kHz, and the speed reference is 900 rpm.
A rotary decoder is employed to obtain the position and speed of the motor rotor. In order to verify the
effectiveness of the method at variable load, the load torque of 40 Nm and 30 Nm are suddenly added
at times
Energies c and
2019, 12, x d.
FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

Controller3

Controller1 Controller2

Inverter2

Motor 1 Motor 2

Rectifier

Oscilloscope

Inverter1
PC Switch

Figure
Figure5.5.The
Theexperimental
experimentalplatform.
platform.

Theexperiment
The experiment waswas conducted in in three
threeparts.
parts.The
Theexperimental
experimental results of of
results current references
current and
references
current
and responses
current withwith
responses different parameter
different mismatch
parameter are shown
mismatch in Figures
are shown 6–11. The
in Figures orange
6–11. The and blue
orange
linesblue
and represent the d-axis the
lines represent current andcurrent
d-axis q-axis current reference
and q-axis values
current respectively.
reference values The green lineThe
respectively. and
the red
green lineline
andrepresent therepresent
the red line current response
the currentvalues of d-axis
response andofq-axis
values d-axisrespectively. As can be seen
and q-axis respectively. As
from Figures 6–11, when the parameters are mismatched, the error between
can be seen from Figures 6–11, when the parameters are mismatched, the error between the the predictive current and
the currentcurrent
predictive referenceandvalue increases,
the current and the value
reference controlincreases,
effect is seriously
and the disturbed. Theisreason
control effect why
seriously
the controlThe
disturbed. effect is disturbed
reason why the is that the
control control
effect performance
is disturbed is thatofthe
IPMSM controlled
control by FCS-MPC
performance of IPMSMis
controlled by FCS-MPC is heavily dependent on the motor parameters. When the motor parameters
do not match the motor parameters in the controller, the deviation between the reference current
and the response current will occur. More importantly, the parameter mismatch causes significant
response current fluctuations, which will have a bad impact on the control performance of the
control system.
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
track the current references better and significantly reduce the errors between them. The reason is
track the
the current
trackduring current references
references better and
and significantly reduce
reduce the errors between
between them. The
The reason is
that the operation ofbetter
the motor, significantly
the motor parameters thecan
errors
be estimated them.
effectively,reason
and the is
that
that during
during the
the operation
operation of
of the
the motor,
motor, the
the motor
motor parameters
parameters can
can be
be estimated
estimated effectively,
effectively, and
and the
the
controller parameters can be adjusted as well, which can effectively improve the current control
controller
controller parameters
parameters can
can bebe adjusted
adjusted as
as well,
well, which
which cancan effectively
effectively improve
improve the the current
current control
control
effect even
Energies 2019, under
12, 4803 the changing load operating state. 11 of 16
effect even
effectFrom
even theunder
under the
the changing
changing load
load operating
operating state.
state.
analysis of the experimental waveform, it can be known that the disturbance of
From
From the
the analysis
analysis of
of the
the experimental
experimental waveform,
waveform, it
it can
can be
be known
known that
thatonthe
the disturbance
disturbance of
of
motor parameters can deteriorate the performance of IPMSM operating based FCS-MPC control
motor
motor parameters can deteriorate the performance of IPMSM operating based on FCS-MPC control
heavilyparameters
strategy dependent
with MTPA can deteriorate
onmethod.
the motor the
The performance
parameters.
accuracy When
of ofthe
IPMSM
motor
steady-state operating ofbased
parameters
tracking on
notFCS-MPC
dod-q
the match
axis thecontrol
currentsmotor
are
strategy
strategy with
with MTPA
MTPA method.
method. The
The accuracy
accuracy of
of steady-state
steady-state tracking
tracking of
of the
the d-q
d-q axis
axis currents
currents are
are
parameters in the controller, the deviation between the reference current
affected by the values of IPMSM parameters. By adopting the proposed optimal MPC method and the response current will
affected
affected by
by the
the values
values of
of IPMSM
IPMSM parameters.
parameters. By
By adopting
adopting the
the proposed
proposed optimal
optimal MPC
MPC method
method
occur. on
based More importantly,
Adaline the parameter
neural network mismatch
algorithm in thiscauses
paper,significant
the d-q axisresponse
currentcurrent fluctuations,
static error can be
based
based on
on Adaline
Adaline neural
neural network
network algorithm
algorithm in
in this
this paper,
paper, the d-q
d-q axis
axis current
current static
static error
error can
can bebe
which will have a bad impact on the control
eliminated in the presence of parameters disturbance. performance of the control system.
eliminated in the presence of parameters disturbance.
eliminated in the presence of parameters disturbance.
30
030
(A)
0030
(A)

30
i(A)

030
(A)
dref

0030
(A)
-30
idref

i(A)
-30
idref

qref
30 -30

-30
iqref
-30
iqref
30 -30
030
d(A)

0030
di(A)

030
idi(A)

q(A)

0030
-30

qi(A)
-30

iqi(A)
-30

-30
-30
c d c d

-30
cc Time(2s/div) d cc Time(2s/div) d
d
d Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div) Time(2s/div)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
(b)
(a)
Figure 6. Experimental results of MPC under Ld = 2Ld0. (a) d-axis current reference and its response.
Figure 6.
6. Experimental
Experimental results
results of MPC under Ld ==2L
under L 2Ld0 . (a)(a)d-axis
d-axiscurrent
currentreference
referenceand
andits
itsresponse.
Figure
Figure
(b) q-axis Experimental
current reference andofitsMPC
response. d = 2L d0. .(a)
d0 d-axis current reference and its response.
response.
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.
30
030
(A)
30
(A)

03030
i(A)

(A)
0
dref

0030
(A)
-30 0
idref

i(A)
-30
idref

qref
-30

-30
iqref
-30
iqref
03030 -30
30
30
d(A)

-300030
di(A)
0
idi(A)

q(A)

0030
-30

qi(A)
iqi(A)
-30

-30
-30

c d c d
-30

cc Time(2s/div) d
d cc Time(2s/div) d
Time(2s/div) d
Time(2s/div) Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div)
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 7.
7. Experimental
Experimental results
results of
of MPC under Ld = 0.5L . (a)
. (a)d-axis
d-axiscurrent
currentreference
referenceand
andits
itsresponse.
Figure 7. Experimental results of MPC under Ldd ==0.5L
0.5Ld0
d0. (a) d-axis current reference and its response.
response.
Figure
(b) 7. Experimental
q-axis current results
reference and ofitsMPC under Ld = 0.5Ld0d0. (a) d-axis current reference and its response.
response.
(b) q-axis
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.
30
030
(A)
-30 0 30 -30 0 30
(A)

30
i(A)

030
(A)
0
dref

0030
(A)
-30
idref

i(A)
-30
idref

qref

-30
iqref
-30
iqref
30 -30
30
30
d(A)
di(A)
0

030
idi(A)
0

q(A)

0030
-30

qi(A)
-30

iqi(A)
-30
-30

c d c d
-30

cc Time(2s/div) d
d cc Time(2s/div) d
d
Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div) Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div)
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 8.
Figure Experimental results
8. Experimental results of
of MPC
MPC under
under LLqq ==2L
2Lq0q0. .(a)
(a)d-axis
d-axiscurrent
currentreference
referenceand
andits
itsresponse.
response.
Figure 8. Experimental results of MPC under Lq = 2Lq0. (a) d-axis current reference and its response.
Figure
(b) 8.
q-axis Experimental
current results
reference and of
itsMPC under
response.
(b) q-axis current reference and its response. L q = 2Lq0. (a) d-axis current reference and its response.
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.

Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2019,
2019, 12, x4803
FOR PEER REVIEW 1312of
of 16
16
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

03030
(A)
00 30
(A)

03030
i(A)

(A)
dref

00 30
-30

(A)
idref

i(A)
-30
idref

qref
03030 -30

-30
iqref
-30
iqref
03030 -30
id(A)
00 30
d(A)
idi(A)

iq(A)
00 30
-30

q(A)
-30

iqi(A)
-30

-30
-30
c d c d

-30
cc Time(2s/div) d
d cc Time(2s/div) d
d
Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div) Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div)
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 9. Experimental results of MPC under Lq = 0.5Lq0. (a) d-axis current reference and its response.
Figure 9.
9. Experimental results of MPC under
under L
Lqq ===0.5L
Figure Experimental results 0.5Lq0.. (a)(a)d-axis
.(a) d-axiscurrent
currentreference
referenceand
andits
itsresponse.
response.
Figure
(b) q-axis Experimental results
current reference andofitsMPC
response. 0.5L q0
q0 d-axis current reference and its response.
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.
03030
(A)
00 30

03030
(A)
i(A)

(A)
dref

00 30
(A)
-30
idref

i(A)
-30
idref

qref
03030 -30

-30
iqref
-30
iqref
03030 -30
id(A)
00 30
d(A)
idi(A)

iq(A)
00 30
-30

q(A)
-30

iqi(A)
-30

-30
-30

c d c d
-30

cc Time(2s/div) d
d cc Time(2s/div) d
d
Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div) Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div)
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 10. Experimental results of MPC under Ψ
under Ψff ==22ΨΨf0. .(a) d-axis
d-axiscurrent
currentreference
referenceand
andits
itsresponse.
under Ψ
Ψff == 22Ψ
Figure 10.
Figure Experimental results
10. Experimental results of
of MPC
MPC under f0 (a)d-axis response.
Figure
(b) 10.current
q-axis Experimental results
reference and of
its MPC
response. Ψf0f0.. (a)
(a) d-axis current
current reference
reference and
and its
its response.
response.
(b)
(b) q-axis current reference and its response.
(b) q-axis
q-axis current
current reference
reference and
and its
its response.
response.
03030
(A)
00 30
(A)

03030
i(A)

(A)
dref

00 30
-30

(A)
idref

i(A)
-30
idref

qref
03030 -30

-30
iqref
iqref
-30
03030 -30
id(A)
00 30
d(A)
idi(A)

iq(A)
00 30
-30

q(A)
-30

iqi(A)
-30

-30
-30

c d c d
-30

cc Time(2s/div) d
d cc Time(2s/div) d
d
Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div) Time(2s/div)
Time(2s/div)
(a) (b)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
11. Experimental
Figure 11.
Figure Experimentalresults of of
results MPCMPCunder Ψf = Ψ
under 0.5Ψ
f = f00.5 Ψf0d-axis
. (a) currentcurrent
. (a) d-axis reference and its response.
reference and its
Figure
(b)
Figure 11.
q-axis
11. Experimental
current reference
Experimental results
and its
results of MPC
response.
of MPC under
under ΨΨ f = 0.5Ψf0. (a) d-axis current reference and its
= 0.5 Ψ . (a) d-axis current reference and its
response. (b) q-axis current reference and its response. f f0
response.
response. (b)
(b) q-axis
q-axis current
current reference
reference and
and its
its response.
response.
Afterwards, the result of the IPMSM parameters identification based on the FCS-MPC and Adaline
neural network algorithm was verified. Figure 12 shows the identification result of the d-q axis
inductances and the rotor permanent magnet flux, where the d-axis inductance is represented by
orange line, the q-axis inductance is represented by red line, and the rotor permanent magnet flux
linkage is represented by blue line. It can be seen from the figure that the motor parameters can be
quickly and accurately estimated in real time by the algorithm proposed in this paper so that the
identification values can be applied to the FCS-MPC controller.

Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
 Energies 2019, 12, 4803 13 of 16
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16

Ld(mH)
0 1 0.2
Ψf(Wb)

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16

0 0.1
Ld(mH)
1
2
0
Lq(mH)
0
0.2
-2
Ψf(Wb)
0.1

Time(200ms/div)

Figure 12. Experimental results of d-q axis inductances and rotor permanent magnet flux
0

linkage
Figure 12.identification.
Experimental results of d-q axis inductances and rotor permanent magnet flux linkage
2

identification.
Finally, the experimental results of current references and current responses with MPC based
Lq(mH)

on Adaline parameter identification method are shown in Figure 13. The orange and blue lines
0

represent the d-axis current and q-axis current reference values, respectively. The green line and the
-30 0 30
idref(A)

-2

-30 0 30

red line represent the current response values of d-axis and q-axis, respectively. Comparing with the
iqref(A)

parameters mismatch condition, it can be found that in this case the d-q axis, current responses can
Time(200ms/div)
track the current references better and significantly reduce the errors between them. The reason is that
-30 0 30

during the operation of the motor, the motor parameters can be estimated effectively, and the controller
id(A)

-30 0 30

parameters canExperimental
Figure 12. be adjusted as well,of
results which can inductances
d-q axis effectively improve
and rotorthe current control
permanent magneteffect even under
flux linkage
iq(A)

the changing load

identification. operating state.
c d c d
Time(2s/div) Time(2s/div)
-30 0 30

(a) (b)
idref(A)

-30 0 30
iqref(A)

Figure 13. Experimental results of predictive control for IPMSM based on parameter identification
with Adaline neural network method. (a) d-axis current reference and its response. (b) q-axis current
reference and its response.
-30 0 30
id(A)

-30 0 30
iq(A)

5. Conclusion
In this paper, a novel c online parameter d identification method cbased on Adaline d linear neural
Time(2s/div)
network for IPMSM is proposed. The discrete time model of IPMSM is derived and the traditional Time(2s/div)
FCS-MPC algorithm is figured(a)out based on this discrete time model. The (b) experimental results
show that the traditional
Experimental FCS-MPC ofmethod
results of predictiveis sensitive forto
control for parameter
IPMSM based disturbance
on parameter such as d-q axis
Figure
Figure 13.
13. Experimental results predictive control IPMSM based on parameter identification
identification
inductances and flux
with Adaline
Adaline neural linkage
network ofmethod.
permanent magnet.
(a) d-axis
d-axis currentInreference
the proposed
and its optimal (b)
its response.
response. MPC method,
q-axis current the
with neural network method. (a) current reference and (b) q-axis current
inductance and
reference and flux
and its linkage
its response.
response. parameters are identified based on Adaline neural network in real time
reference
and then applied to FCS-MPC controller and MTPA module. The experimental results show that
the From the
proposed
5. Conclusion analysis
optimal of the experimental
algorithm can suppress waveform, it cancaused
the influence be known that the disturbance
by parameters disturbance of motor
and
parameters
improve can deteriorate
the system’s the performance
performance of IPMSM
of steady-state current operating
tracking.based on FCS-MPC control strategy
with In this paper,
MTPA method. a novel online parameter
The accuracy identification
of steady-state tracking ofmethod
the d-q based on Adaline
axis currents linear neural
are affected by the
Author
network Contributions:
for IPMSM L.W.
is proposed the
proposed. The new scheme.
discrete L.W.
time and J.M.
model of performed
IPMSM is the experiments
derived and and
the data
traditional
values of IPMSM parameters. By adopting the proposed optimal MPC method based on Adaline neural
FCS-MPC
analysis. L.W.algorithm
wrote the first is figured
draft, andout
G.T.based on guided
and J.M. this discrete timethe
and revised model. The experimental results
manuscript.
show that the traditional FCS-MPC method is sensitive to parameter disturbance such as d-q axis
Funding:
inductancesThe project
and fluxis supported
linkageby ofthe National Natural
permanent magnet. Science
In theFoundational
proposed ofoptimal
China (Grant
MPCnumber:
method, the
inductance
Energies 2019, 12,and flux
x; doi: FOR linkage parameters are identified based on Adaline www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
PEER REVIEW neural network in real time
and then applied to FCS-MPC controller and MTPA module. The experimental results show that
the proposed optimal algorithm can suppress the influence caused by parameters disturbance and
Energies 2019, 12, 4803 14 of 16

network algorithm in this paper, the d-q axis current static error can be eliminated in the presence of
parameters disturbance.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, a novel online parameter identification method based on Adaline linear neural
network for IPMSM is proposed. The discrete time model of IPMSM is derived and the traditional
FCS-MPC algorithm is figured out based on this discrete time model. The experimental results show
that the traditional FCS-MPC method is sensitive to parameter disturbance such as d-q axis inductances
and flux linkage of permanent magnet. In the proposed optimal MPC method, the inductance and flux
linkage parameters are identified based on Adaline neural network in real time and then applied to
FCS-MPC controller and MTPA module. The experimental results show that the proposed optimal
algorithm can suppress the influence caused by parameters disturbance and improve the system’s
performance of steady-state current tracking.

Author Contributions: L.W. proposed the new scheme. L.W. and J.M. performed the experiments and data
analysis. L.W. wrote the first draft, and G.T. and J.M. guided and revised the manuscript.
Funding: The project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundational of China (Grant number:
U1610113) and National Key R&D Program of China (Grant number: 2016YFC0600804).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Inoue, Y.; Yamada, K.; Morimoto, S.; Sanada, M. Effectiveness of Voltage Error Compensation and Parameter
Identification for Model-Based Sensorless Control of IPMSM. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2009, 45, 213–221.
[CrossRef]
2. Wang, Q.; Niu, S.; Ching, T.W. A New Double-Winding Vernier Permanent Magnet Wind Power Generator
for Hybrid AC/DC Microgrid Application. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2018, 54, 1–5. [CrossRef]
3. Niu, L.; Xu, D.; Yang, M.; Gui, X.; Liu, Z. On-line Inertia Identification Algorithm for PI Parameters
Optimization in Speed Loop. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2015, 30, 849–859. [CrossRef]
4. Guo, X.; Du, S.; Li, Z.; Chen, F.; Chen, K.; Chen, R. Analysis of Current Predictive Control Algorithm for
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Based on Three-Level Inverters. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 87750–87759.
[CrossRef]
5. Niu, L.; Yang, M.; Xu, D. Predictive current control for Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor based on
deadbeat control. In Proceedings of the 2012 7th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications
(ICIEA), Singapore, 18–20 July 2012; pp. 46–51.
6. Slotine, J.-J.E.; Li, W. Applied Nonlinear Control; Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA,
1991; Volume 199.
7. Du, H.; Hu, X.; Ma, C.; Zhang, G. Numerical PI tuning method and its application in aircraft pitch control. In
Proceedings of the 2017 12th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), Siem Reap,
Cambodia, 18–20 June 2017; pp. 1270–1274.
8. Silva, G.J.; Datta, A.; Bhattacharyya, S.P. PID Controllers for Time-Delay Systems; Birkhauser: Basel, Switzerland;
Berlin, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 2005.
9. Liu, J.; Li, H.; Deng, Y. Torque Ripple Minimization of PMSM Based on Robust ILC Via Adaptive Sliding
Mode Control. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2018, 33, 3655–3671. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, X.; Sun, L.; Zhao, K.; Sun, L. Nonlinear Speed Control for PMSM System Using Sliding-Mode Control
and Disturbance Compensation Techniques. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2013, 28, 1358–1365. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, W.; Fan, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhang, Q. Finite control set model predictive current control of a five-phase
PMSM with virtual voltage vectors and adaptive control set. CES Trans. Electr. Mach. Syst. 2018, 2, 136–141.
12. El-Sousy, F.F.M. Intelligent Optimal Recurrent Wavelet Elman Neural Network Control System for
Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motor Servo Drive. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2013, 9, 1986–2003.
[CrossRef]
13. Lin, F.; Hung, Y.; Ruan, K. An Intelligent Second-Order Sliding-Mode Control for an Electric Power Steering
System Using a Wavelet Fuzzy Neural Network. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 22, 1598–1611. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 4803 15 of 16

14. NNalakath, S.; Sun, Y.; Preindl, M.; Emadi, A. Optimization-Based Position Sensorless Finite Control Set
Model Predictive Control for IPMSMs. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2018, 33, 8672–8682. [CrossRef]
15. Mwasilu, F.; Nguyen, H.T.; Choi, H.H.; Jung, J. Finite Set Model Predictive Control of Interior PM Synchronous
Motor Drives with an External Disturbance Rejection Technique. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2017, 22,
762–773. [CrossRef]
16. Mwasilu, F.; Kim, E.; Rafaq, M.S.; Jung, J. Finite-Set Model Predictive Control Scheme with an Optimal Switching
Voltage Vector Technique for High-Performance IPMSM Drive Applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2017, 14,
3840–3848. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, W.; Liu, T.; Syaifudin, Y. Model Predictive Controller for a Micro-PMSM-Based Five-Finger Control
System. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 3666–3676. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, X.; Hou, B.; Mei, Y. Deadbeat Predictive Current Control of Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motors
with Stator Current and Disturbance Observer. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2017, 32, 3818–3834. [CrossRef]
19. Jiang, Y.; Xu, W.; Mu, C.; Liu, Y. Improved Deadbeat Predictive Current Control Combined Sliding Mode
Strategy for PMSM Drive System. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2018, 67, 251–263. [CrossRef]
20. Du, X.; Zhang, W. High Precision Off-line Parameters Identification of PMSM Considering Dead-time Effect.
In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), Vancouver,
BC, Canada, 12–14 June 2019; pp. 336–341.
21. Underwood, S.J.; Husain, I. Online Parameter Estimation and Adaptive Control of Permanent-Magnet
Synchronous Machines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2010, 57, 2435–2443. [CrossRef]
22. Morimoto, S.; Sanada, M.; Takeda, Y. Mechanical Sensorless Drives of IPMSM with Online Parameter
Identification. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2006, 42, 1241–1248. [CrossRef]
23. Kivanc, O.C.; Ozturk, S.B. Sensorless PMSM Drive Based on Stator Feedforward Voltage Estimation Improved
with MRAS Multiparameter Estimation. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2018, 23, 1326–1337. [CrossRef]
24. Boileau, T.; Leboeuf, N.; Nahid-Mobarakeh, B.; Meibody-Tabar, F. Online Identification of PMSM Parameters:
Parameter Identifiability and Estimator Comparative Study. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2011, 47, 1944–1957.
[CrossRef]
25. Dezza, F.C.; Foglia, G.; Iacchetti, M.F.; Perini, R. An MRAS Observer for Sensorless DFIM Drives with
Direct Estimation of the Torque and Flux Rotor Current Components. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2012, 27,
2576–2584. [CrossRef]
26. Shi, Y.; Sun, K.; Huang, H.M.L. Permanent magnet flux identification of IPMSM based on EKF with
speed sensorless control. In Proceedings of the IECON 2010—36th Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society, Glendale, AZ, USA, 7–10 November 2010; pp. 2252–2257.
27. Shi, Y.; Sun, K.; Huang, L.; Li, Y. Online Identification of Permanent Magnet Flux Based on Extended Kalman
Filter for IPMSM Drive with Position Sensorless Control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 4169–4178.
[CrossRef]
28. Liu, Z.; Wei, H.; Zhong, Q.; Liu, K.; Xiao, X.; Wu, L. Parameter Estimation for VSI-Fed PMSM Based on
a Dynamic PSO with Learning Strategies. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2017, 32, 3154–3165. [CrossRef]
29. Liu, Z.; Wei, H.; Li, X.; Liu, K.; Zhong, Q. Global Identification of Electrical and Mechanical Parameters
in PMSM Drive Based on Dynamic Self-Learning PSO. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2018, 33, 10858–10871.
[CrossRef]
30. Liu, K.; Zhu, Z.Q. Online Estimation of the Rotor Flux Linkage and Voltage-Source Inverter Nonlinearity in
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine Drives. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2014, 29, 418–427. [CrossRef]
31. Liu, K.; Zhu, Z.Q. Position-Offset-Based Parameter Estimation Using the Adaline NN for Condition
Monitoring of Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Machines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62, 2372–2383.
[CrossRef]
32. Gao, S.; Dong, H.; Ning, B.; Tang, T.; Li, Y. Nonlinear mapping-based feedback technique of dynamic surface
control for the chaotic PMSM using neural approximation and parameter identification. IET Control Theory
Appl. 2018, 12, 819–827. [CrossRef]
33. Becerra, V.M.; Garces, F.R.; Nasuto, S.J.; Holderbaum, W. An efficient parameterization of dynamic neural
networks for nonlinear system identification. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 2005, 16, 983–988. [CrossRef]
34. Li, K.; Wang, Y. Maximum Torque Per Ampere (MTPA) Control for IPMSM Drives Based on
a Variable-Equivalent-Parameter MTPA Control Law. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2019, 34, 7092–7102.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 4803 16 of 16

35. Li, K.; Wang, Y. Maximum Torque per Ampere (MTPA) Control for IPMSM Drives Using Signal Injection
and an MTPA Control Law. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 15, 5588–5598. [CrossRef]
36. Alexandrou, D.; Adamopoulos, N.K.; Kladas, A.G. Development of a Constant Switching Frequency Deadbeat
Predictive Control Technique for Field-Oriented Synchronous Permanent-Magnet Motor Drive. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 5167–5175. [CrossRef]
37. Bode, G.H.; Loh, P.C.; Newman, M.J.; Holmes, D.G. An improved robust predictive current regulation
algorithm. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2005, 41, 1720–1733. [CrossRef]
38. Gas, B. Self-Organizing MultiLayer Perceptron. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 2010, 21, 1766–1779. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).