The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

FCS-MPC-based control of a five-phase induction motor and its comparison with PI-PWM control

FCS-MPC-based control of a five-phase induction motor and its comparison with PI-PWM control
FCS-MPC-based control of a five-phase induction motor and its comparison with PI-PWM control
This paper presents an investigation of the finite-control-set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) of a five-phase induction motor drive. Specifically, performance with regard to different selections of inverter switching states is investigated. The motor is operated under rotor flux orientation, and both flux/torque producing (d-q) and nonflux/torque producing (x-y) currents are included into the quadratic cost function. The performance is evaluated on the basis of the primary plane, secondary plane, and phase (average) current ripples, across the full inverter's linear operating region under constant flux-torque operation. A secondary plane current ripple weighting factor is added in the cost function, and its impact on all the studied schemes is evaluated. Guidelines for the best switching state set and weighting factor selections are thus established. All the considerations are accompanied with both simulation and experimental results, which are further compared with the steady-state and transient performance of a proportional-integral pulsewidth modulation (PI-PWM)-based current control scheme. While a better transient performance is obtained with FCS-MPC, steady-state performance is always superior with PI-PWM control. It is argued that this is inevitable in multiphase drives in general, due to the existence of nonflux/torque producing current components
pi control, electric current control, induction motor drives, machine control, predictive control, fcs-mpc-based current control, pi-pwm control, finite-control-set model predictive control, five-phase induction motor, flux-torque operation, inverter switching states, multiphase drives, phase current ripples, proportional-integral pulsewidth modulation-based current control scheme, rotor flux orientation, current control, inverters, radio frequency, rotors, switches, torque, vectors, model predictive control (mpc), multiphase inverters, multiphase machines, weighting factor
0278-0046
149-163
Lim, C.S.
3c5571b0-a770-4808-b55f-fdc89b495fbe
Levi, E.
068c5db6-2328-46b5-aa66-92f6502375fc
Jones, M.
cf34ab48-f4e0-40d8-9ce5-8f3b9cfe236e
Rahim, N. A.
c6f2193e-dedc-4e29-86a6-f22fc4ed6869
Hew, W. P.
b1db4918-62ec-4ba6-8c19-5972ee4d3aa5
Lim, C.S.
3c5571b0-a770-4808-b55f-fdc89b495fbe
Levi, E.
068c5db6-2328-46b5-aa66-92f6502375fc
Jones, M.
cf34ab48-f4e0-40d8-9ce5-8f3b9cfe236e
Rahim, N. A.
c6f2193e-dedc-4e29-86a6-f22fc4ed6869
Hew, W. P.
b1db4918-62ec-4ba6-8c19-5972ee4d3aa5

Lim, C.S., Levi, E., Jones, M., Rahim, N. A. and Hew, W. P. (2014) FCS-MPC-based control of a five-phase induction motor and its comparison with PI-PWM control. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 61 (1), 149-163. (doi:10.1109/TIE.2013.2248334).

Record type: Article

Abstract

This paper presents an investigation of the finite-control-set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) of a five-phase induction motor drive. Specifically, performance with regard to different selections of inverter switching states is investigated. The motor is operated under rotor flux orientation, and both flux/torque producing (d-q) and nonflux/torque producing (x-y) currents are included into the quadratic cost function. The performance is evaluated on the basis of the primary plane, secondary plane, and phase (average) current ripples, across the full inverter's linear operating region under constant flux-torque operation. A secondary plane current ripple weighting factor is added in the cost function, and its impact on all the studied schemes is evaluated. Guidelines for the best switching state set and weighting factor selections are thus established. All the considerations are accompanied with both simulation and experimental results, which are further compared with the steady-state and transient performance of a proportional-integral pulsewidth modulation (PI-PWM)-based current control scheme. While a better transient performance is obtained with FCS-MPC, steady-state performance is always superior with PI-PWM control. It is argued that this is inevitable in multiphase drives in general, due to the existence of nonflux/torque producing current components

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 27 November 2012
e-pub ahead of print date: 22 February 2013
Published date: January 2014
Keywords: pi control, electric current control, induction motor drives, machine control, predictive control, fcs-mpc-based current control, pi-pwm control, finite-control-set model predictive control, five-phase induction motor, flux-torque operation, inverter switching states, multiphase drives, phase current ripples, proportional-integral pulsewidth modulation-based current control scheme, rotor flux orientation, current control, inverters, radio frequency, rotors, switches, torque, vectors, model predictive control (mpc), multiphase inverters, multiphase machines, weighting factor
Organisations: EEE

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 390573
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/390573
ISSN: 0278-0046
PURE UUID: 49c20aa6-b691-482e-9fe2-e2153c2259cb

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Apr 2016 10:29
Last modified: 15 Jul 2019 20:39

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×