3424 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO.

7, JULY 2012

Using Full Order and Reduced Order Observers for

Robust Sensorless Predictive Torque Control
of Induction Motors
S. Alireza Davari, Student Member, IEEE, Davood Arab Khaburi, Fengxiang Wang,
and Ralph M. Kennel, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, two kinds of observer-based sensorless predictive control. The mathematical process is time consum-
predictive torque control methods are proposed. The predictive ing in this method. The finite control set model predictive control
method is based on examining feasible voltage vectors (VVs) in (FCS-MPC) method uses another approach to minimizing the
a prescribed cost function. The VV that minimizes the cost func-
tion is selected. A novel robust prediction model is presented. The cost function. In this method, the discrete nature of the power
prediction model includes sliding mode feedbacks. The feedback converters is contemplated. In this approach, the feasible volt-
gains are assigned by the H-inf method. Two kinds of observers are age vectors (VVs) are examined in terms of cost and the one
applied for flux and speed estimation, i.e., sliding mode full order that minimizes the cost function is selected [9]–[12].
observer and reduced order observer. In order to verify the pro- Thus far, the PTC method has not been adopted in many
posed method, simulation and experimental results are presented
in wide speed range. A comparison of the two methods is performed industrial applications because it is implemented by means of
based on the results. speed sensor in most cases. Thus, one of the main advantages
of the DTC method is not included in the PTC method. There
Index Terms—Induction motor, observer, predictive torque con-
trol, sensorless drive. have been few investigations into implementing PTC without
using a speed sensor. In [13], a predictive method is used in a
I. INTRODUCTION neural network observer in order to estimate the speed. Some
investigations have proposed sensorless methods for predictive
HE PREDICTIVE torque control (PTC) method is of in-
T terest as an alternative to the direct torque control (DTC)
method in applications where torque control is more important
current control in the FOC method [14]–[16]. In these investi-
gations reduced order observer (ROO) is used to avoid heavy
calculations because complex predictive methods are used. Fur-
than speed control, such as the traction, paper, and steel in- thermore, these methods are not based on the direct control of
dustries. The PTC method shows faster dynamic response and torque and the aforementioned features are not included. The
causes less torque ripple compared to the DTC method because sensorless PTC method, in which the torque is controlled di-
of its characteristic, i.e., predictive control. rectly, is proposed in [17]. ROO can be unstable, especially
Different kinds of PTC methods have been investigated to at low speeds, because of its open-loop instinct. To overcome
date. The direct mean torque control method was introduced to this problem, drift and offset compensation by considering the
control the mean value of the torque at a reference value [1]–[3]. accurate model of inverter and adaptive parameter estimation
The deadbeat control method calculates the voltage reference to has been proposed in [17]–[19]. In this method, however, the
achieve a zero torque error in the next control step [4]. The model accurate parameters of inverter model are needed. A sensor-
predictive control (MPC) method determines the optimum volt- less deadbeat DTC is developed in [20]. The deadbeat control
age by using the explicit model of the motor and inverter by method is not sufficiently robust [21] and this drawback can de-
minimizing a cost function [5]. In the MPC method, the criteria teriorate the performance of the drive system in sensorless ap-
for voltage selection is more flexible [6]. As explained in [5], [7], plications. Applying test voltage signals during PTC can reach
and [8], if cost function minimization is performed by the trans- accurate speed estimation in reluctance motor control even at
fer function-based controlled auto regressive integrated moving very low speeds [22], [23]. This method reduces the dynamic
average (CARIMA) model, the method is called generalized performance of the predictive method and can make audible
noise. In [24], the effect of saliencies without signal injection is
used. In [25], the method is improved in order to increase the
Manuscript received July 25, 2011; revised October 24, 2011; accepted robustness.
November 25, 2011. Date of current version April 3, 2012. Recommended for The additional difficulty of sensorless PTC method versus
publication by Associate Editor J. O. Ojo.
S. A. Davari and D. A. Khaburi are with the Center of Excellence for Power conventional sensorless methods is the combination of estima-
Systems Automation and Operation, Department of Electrical Engineering, tion and prediction. A measured speed will be used during both
Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 1311416846, Iran (e-mail: of the aforementioned steps if the PTC method is not applied
adavari@iust.ac.ir; khaburi@iust.ac.ir).
F. Wang and R. M. Kennel are with the Institute for Electronics Drive as the sensorless method. However, if a sensorless observer is
Systems and Power Electronics, Technische Universitaet Munchen, Munich used for flux estimation and a sensorless prediction model is
80333, Germany (e-mail: fengxiang.wang@tum.de; ralph.kennel@tum.de). adopted, the sensorless PTC will be achieved.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Regarding the observing stage, despite the fact that the
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2179812 full order observer consists of speed-dependent terms, some
0885-8993/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
DAVARI et al.: USING FULL ORDER AND REDUCED ORDER OBSERVERS FOR ROBUST SENSORLESS PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL 3425

techniques have been proposed for sensorless application. Since

the speed adaptation method creates cumulative error and it can
be affected by noise and time delay, sliding mode full order ob-
server (SMFOO) is a better solution than speed adaptation [26].
In [27], the sliding mode gains are assigned by means of pole
shifting method. Although this method overcomes the problem
of instability for pole multiplying [28], the gains are speed de-
pendent. In [21], the speed reference is used instead of estimated
speed. Empirical methods are used for robust sliding mode gain
assignment in [29]. But the robustness is not analytically proven.
On the other hand, with respect to the prediction stage, the
open-loop full order model is commonly used as a prediction
model. This can reduce the method’s robustness in sensorless
application. If sliding mode feedback is used in the prediction
model, the injected errors from observer can be compensated.
This paper proposes two sensorless PTC methods. The first
method is based on a sensorless PTC with voltage model ob-
server and the second method is a sensorless PTC with sliding Fig. 1. Sensorless prediction model block diagram.
mode full order observer. In order to compensate the estima-
tion error that is injected to prediction model by observer, a
novel robust prediction model is proposed. The new prediction
model consists of feedbacks. Gains of feedbacks are assigned where ψ̄ˆs is the stator flux that will be attained from observer, V̄s
by means of robustness analysis. The prediction model is used and I¯s are the stator voltage and current, respectively, and Rs is
in FCS-MPC to select the proper VV. the stator resistance. τr is the rotor time constant, Ls , Lr , and Lm
are the stator, rotor, and mutual inductances, respectively, ts is
the sampling interval, and σ = 1 − L2m Ls Lr . ω̂r is estimated
II. CLOSED-LOOP SENSORLESS PREDICTION MODEL rotor speed that will be gotten from observer and Iˆ¯sp is the last
For application of the sensorless observer in predictive torque predicted stator current. Superscript “ˆ” indicates variables that
control, both observer and prediction models have to be applied are calculated from IM model. Variables without this superscript
without using measured speed. When the prediction model is are measured variables.
applied without using measured speed, the accuracy of the pre- Kp 1 and Kp 2 are coefficients of the sliding mode feedback for
diction can be affected by the error of estimated speed. In order the prediction model
to compensate this effect, a closed-loop prediction model is
proposed. Kp1 = Kp11 + jKp12 (2a)
The main goal of PTC is direct control of the stator flux and Kp2 = Kp21 + jKp22 . (2b)
torque by means of a predictive method. Predicting the stator
flux and torque is based on the induction motor and the inverter Assigning feedback gains will be elaborated on later in the paper.
nonlinear models that are called prediction models. By applying the predicted stator flux and stator current, the
The stator flux and current prediction are based on full order next step torque can be calculated as follows:
discrete model of IM in stationary reference frame. If feedback
3p ˆ
loop is added to IM model, uncertainties (estimated speed error, T̂ (k + 1) = ψ̄ (k + 1) ×I¯ˆs (k + 1) (3)
unbalance current measurement, and parameter variation) can 4 s
be compensated. In this way, prediction will be performed more where T̂ is the torque and p is the number of poles.
accurately. By using current prediction error for feedback loop, Fig. 1 shows the sensorless prediction model block diagram.
the closed-loop prediction model will be achieved as follows:
III. FLUX AND SPEED ESTIMATION
 
ψ̄ˆs (k + 1) = ψ̄ˆs (k) + ts V̄s − Rs I¯s The voltage model observer and full order sliding mode ob-
  server are applied in predictive control in this paper.
+ Kp1 ts sgn I¯s −Iˆ¯sp (1a)
   A. Voltage Model Observer
1 ts ˆ
Iˆ¯s (k + 1) = ψ̄ˆs (k + 1) − 1 − ψ̄ s (k)
σLs τr Voltage model observer is based on the stator differential
  equation. Since the rotor differential equation is not used in this
ts ψ̄ˆ (k)
+ 1− I¯s + j ω̂r ts I¯s − s observer, it should be sorted as ROO.
στr σLs A pure integration of voltage may lead to a drift error because
  of the offset. This error can cause instability. In order to pre-
+ Kp2 ts sgn I¯s −I¯ˆsp (1b) vent the drift error, a low-pass filter is used instead of the pure
3426 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

integration [24] ψ̄ˆs (k) = ψ̄ˆs (k − 1)

    
ψ̄ˆs (k) = (1 + α ts )ψ̄ˆs (k − 1) + ts V̄s − Rs I¯s (4) + ts V̄s − Rs I¯s (k) + Ko1 sgn I¯s (k) − Iˆ¯s (k) (9a)
r r
where α is the filter cutoff frequency. ψ̄ˆr (k) = ψ̄ˆr (k − 1)
Though this method prevents the drift error of integration, it ⎡ L ⎤
m 1 ˆr
causes a phase lag for estimated flux. Note that the effect of r
ψ̂sd (k − 1) − ψ̄ r (k − 1)
the filter on the amplitude of the flux is negligible. Phase lag ⎢L τ σ τr σ ⎥
+ ts ⎣ s r    ⎦(9b)
influences the prediction’s accuracy and causes oscillations in +Ko2 sgn Re I¯s (k) − Iˆ¯s (k) e−j θ r
the torque and flux. This drawback is compensated by sliding
mode coefficients of prediction model in (1). Since the phase where superscript “r” indicates the variables that are in rotor
lag causes error in the predicted current, the difference between flux-oriented frame. Ko 1 and Ko 2 are the observer gains that
last predicted current and the measured current is a criterion for will be elaborated on later
phase lag compensation. Ko1 = Ko11 + jKo12 (10a)
The estimated stator flux that is estimated by (4) is used in
the prediction model. However, speed estimation is necessary Ko2 = Ko21 + jKo22 (10b)
because the prediction model includes speed-dependent terms.
Iˆ¯s is the estimated stator current that is given by
For this, rotor flux has to be calculated before speed estimation
1  ˆ r 
Lm ˆ  Iˆ¯s (k) = Lrψ̄ s (k) − Lmψ̄ˆr (k) ej θ r . (11)
ψ̄ˆr (k) = ψ̄ s − σLs I¯s (5) Ls Lr σ
Lr Avoiding speed adaptation for the observer model reduces the
sensitivity of the whole control method. By using this method,
whereψ̄ˆr is rotor flux. the speed estimation error will only be injected to prediction
The synchronous speed is calculated from the rotor flux as model but not to the observer itself. Therefore, the prediction
follows: model will not be affected by cumulative error.
d ψ̂r β
ω̂s = arctan IV. PREDICTIVE CONTROL METHOD
dt ψ̂r α
Cost function is a criterion for predicting the best voltage to
ψ̂r α (k − 1) ψ̂r β (k) − ψ̂r β (k − 1) ψ̂r α (k) apply. It shows how close torque and flux are to their set points.
= 2 (6) In this paper, FCS-MPC is utilized in order to minimize the
ts ψ̂r (k)
cost function. This method is based on examining feasible VVs
where ω̂s is estimated synchronous speed. in cost function. The VV that minimizes the cost function is
The rotor speed is calculated by subtracting the slip speed selected. Therefore, the following cost function is calculated for
from synchronous speed: each feasible VV:
 
1 2 2
T̂j (k + 1) − T ∗ + Q ψ̄ˆsj (k + 1) − ψ̄s∗
2
Rr T̂ Jj =
ω̂r = ω̂s − (7) 2
2
1.5p ψ̂r (k) j = 1, 2, ...., 7 (12)

where ω̂r is estimated rotor speed, Rr is the rotor resistance, where T̂j (k + 1) and ψ̄ˆsj (k + 1) are the predicted torque and
and T̂ is estimated torque that is calculated as follows: stator flux, which are calculated by means of (1) and (3) con-
sidering application of jth VV. T ∗ and ψ̄s∗ are the torque and
3p ˆ the flux references. Q is a weighting factor that determines the
T̂ = ψ̄ × Iˆ¯s . (8)
4 s importance of flux control compared to torque control.
The VV which minimizes the cost function will be chosen as
B. Sliding Mode Full Order Observer the best apply. This VV has to be exerted to the induction motor
Flux estimation is performed by means of full order observer through the inverter.
which utilizes different reference frames for stator and rotor. If the proposed prediction model is used beside two different
In order to retain the stability of the observer, the closed-loop kinds of observers, two sensorless predictive control methods
type of full order observer is applied. The rotational frame is will be achieved. Fig. 2 shows the whole block diagram for
synchronized with rotor flux in order to eliminate the imaginary sensorless PTC methods.
part of the rotor flux vector. By considering this point, the speed-
V. FEEDBACK GAIN ASSIGNMENT
independent part of the rotor model is the only important part.
Since the speed is eliminated from the observer’s relationships, It can be deduced from (1) and (9) that the prediction model
there is no need for speed adaptation in sensorless application. and full order observer model are the same, though the frames
The following equations show the sensorless full order observer of equations are different. Therefore, if feedback gains are cal-
model [26] culated for one model, they can be easily calculated for the other
DAVARI et al.: USING FULL ORDER AND REDUCED ORDER OBSERVERS FOR ROBUST SENSORLESS PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL 3427

⎡ ⎤
I2×2 −Kp11 I2×2 − Kp12 J2×2
B = ⎣ 1 ⎦ (13f)
I2×2 −Kp21 I2×2 − Kp22 J2×2
σLs
C  = [ 02×2 I2×2 ] (13g)
   
1 0 0 −1
I2×2 = , J2×2 = (13h)
0 1 1 0
where ΔRs and ΔRr are the errors for stator and rotor resis-
tances and Δω̂r is the speed estimation error.
Note that measured voltages and currents are considered as
inputs for the closed-loop model.
In order to calculate the feedback gains that lead to robustly
stable closed-loop model, the following minimization should be
solved [32]:
 
  −1 
min C (sI − A ) B   . (14)
[ Kp 11 Kp 12 Kp 21 Kp 22 ] ∞

Since the maximum values for stator and rotor resistance errors
are imaginable and the maximum of speed estimation error can
Fig. 2. Sensorless FCS-MPC block diagram.
be defined, suboptimal solution of (14) is feasible by means of
the following equation [32]:
model. The feedback gains can be assigned from Lyapunov sta-  
  −1  1
bility theory [26] or pole placement method [30]. These methods C (sI − A ) B   < . (15)
∞ ΔA ∞
usually lead to a wide range of feedback gains. Gain assignment
is performed by considering the dynamic behavior of the closed- In this paper, the maximum error for stator and rotor resistances
loop system [31]. However, in these methods, the robustness is assumed 100% and the maximum of speed estimation error
of the model is not considered. Therefore, parameter estima- is set to 50%. Therefore, ΔA ∞ /A∞ is equal to 58.66%
tion methods are extracted from stability criteria [31]. In this (A = A |K p =0 ).
paper, feedback gains are attained from the robustness H∞ the- In order to solve (15), the open-loop model is written in the
ory [32]. The feedback gains that are calculated by this method following form. By using this form, (15) can be solved by the
compensate the parameter uncertainties. Note that the values of Glover–Doyle algorithm [32]:
the stator and rotor resistances and the estimated speed are the
uncertainties that are considered in this paper. Ẋ = AX + Bg 1 wg + Bg 2 rg (16a)
The state space equation for the closed-loop system that has z = Cg 1 X + D11 wg + D12 rg (16b)
been used in the prediction model is as follows [28]:
yg = Cg 2 X + D21 wg + D22 rg (16c)
Ẋ = (A + ΔA ) X + B  U (13a)
wg = [ Vsd Vsq Isd Isq ]T , rg = [ rg 1 rg 2 ]T (16d)
Y = C X (13b) ⎡ ⎤
02×2 −Rs I2×2
Iˆsd
T
Iˆsq ] , U = [Vsd Isq ]T  
X = [ψ̂sd ψ̂sq Vsq Isd A=⎣ Rr ω̂r −Rr Rs ⎦
I2×2 − J2×2 − I2×2
Y = [ Iˆsd Iˆsq ]T (13c) σLs Lr σLs σLr σLs
⎡ (16e)
02×2
⎡ ⎤
A =⎣

Rr ω̂r I2×2 02×2  
I2×2 − J2×2 I − J2×2
σLs Lr σLs Bg 1 = ⎣ 1 ⎦ , Bg 2 = 2×2 (16f)
⎤ I2×2 02×2 I2×2 − J2×2
(−Rs + Kp11 ) I2×2 + Kp12 J2×2 σLs
  ⎥  
−Rr Rs ⎦ (13d) 02×2 I2×2
− + Kp21 I2×2 + Kp22 J2×2 Cg 1 = , Cg 2 = [ 02×2 I2×2 ] (16g)
σLr σLs 02×2 02×2
⎡ D11 = 04×4 , D22 = 02×2 ,
02×2
 
ΔA = ⎣ ΔRr

Δω̂r 02×2
I2×2 − J2×2 D12 = , D21 = [ 02×2 −I2×2 ] (16h)
σLs Lr σLs I2×2
⎤
−ΔRs I2×2 where wg is the input of the system, rg is the feedback signal,
  ⎦(13e)
−ΔRr ΔRs yg is the output of the system, and z is an intermediate variable
− I2×2 + Δω̂r J2×2 that is necessary to be defined for the Glover–Doyle algorithm.
σLr σLs
3428 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

TABLE I
INDUCTION MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS

Fig. 3. Block diagram of the model.

Fig. 5. Mean speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with VM

observer (prediction model without feedback). (Simulation results).

Fig. 4. Variation of infinity norms of the closed-loop model at various speeds.

A. Simulation Results
Fig. 3 shows the block diagram of the model in a format that In order to achieve simulation results as close as possible to
is suitable for the Glover–Doyle algorithm. real systems, the following uncertainties are considered.
Considering (13d), it can be concluded that the solution of 1) 5% error for stator and rotor resistances in the prediction
(15) is dependent on the speed. Since the most important stability model and observer model.
problem of a sensorless observer appears in low-speed region, 2) 2% offset for the measured currents.
(15) is solved for the minimum speed that it has a solution. 3) Threshold of switches (1 V) is applied in simulated in-
By examining low-speed range, it is deduced that ω = 60 r/min verter model but it is ignored in prediction model and
(2% of the nominal synchronous speed) is the minimum speed observer model.
for which (15) has a solution. One solution of (15) at ω = 60 4) The friction factor for the whole system (fans and internal
r/min gives the following gains in normalized form: friction) is assumed 0.02 Nm.s/rad.
Kp11 = 0.3454, Kp12 = 0.4383, Kp21 = −1.95, Fig. 5 shows the positive and negative step responses of the
sensorless predictive control with voltage model (VM) observer
Kp22 = 1.8631. at mean speed when the prediction model excludes the feed-
back gains. The total harmonic distortion (THD) for steady-
In order to investigate whether the model is stable at higher
state stator current is 69.72% and the mean error for speed
speeds, the infinity norms of the closed-loop model with the
estimation is 0.59%. Fig. 6 shows the results for the same test
calculated gains are calculated in different speeds. Fig. 4 shows
when the prediction model is reinforced by feedback. The in-
the variation of infinity norms of the closed-loop model in vari-
fluence of the feedback in the prediction model is percepti-
ous speeds when gains are kept constant. This figure shows that
ble. The torque oscillations are reduced when the feedback
the model keeps its stability in higher speeds.
is used. The oscillations are originated from the phase lag of
the low-pass filter used in the voltage model observer. Us-
VI. RESULTS ing the closed-loop prediction model reduces the THD of the
In order to verify the proposed sensorless predictive methods, stator current to 18.42%. The mean error for speed estimation
some simulation and experimental tests are performed and the will be reduced to 0.56%.
obtained results are presented here. A two-level voltage source Fig. 7 shows low-speed performance of the proposed sen-
inverter (VSI) is utilized for exerting VVs. Table I shows the sorless predictive control with VM observer. It can be seen the
specifications of induction motor. The control interval duration method is not stable for 240 r/min speed set point (8%). The
is set to 100 μs. minimum speed that the sensorless predictive control with VM
DAVARI et al.: USING FULL ORDER AND REDUCED ORDER OBSERVERS FOR ROBUST SENSORLESS PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL 3429

Fig. 6. Mean speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with VM Fig. 9. Mean speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with
observer (prediction model with feedback). (Simulation results). SMFOO (prediction model with feedback-robust gains for the observer and
prediction model). (Simulation results).

Fig. 7. Low speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with VM

observer (prediction model with feedback). (Simulation results). Fig. 10. Low-speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with
SMFOO (prediction model without feedback). (Simulation results).

Fig. 8. Mean speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with

SMFOO (prediction model without feedback-pole shifting for observer gains). Fig. 11. Low-speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with
(Simulation results). SMFOO (prediction model with feedback). (simulation results).

observer can be stable is 300 r/min (10%). The THD of the sta- has similar responses to the combination of the conventional
tor current is 45.21% and the mean error of speed estimation is prediction model with the sliding mode observer without robust
2.9%. gain assignment. The THD of the stator current is 64.86% for
Fig. 8 shows the speed control responses of the sensorless the combination of the open-loop prediction model and pole-
PTC method when the prediction model is open loop and the shifted sliding mode observer but it is reduced to 11.29% by
feedback gains for the observer are assigned by the pole shifting using the proposed robust method. The mean error of the speed
method. Fig. 9 shows the same speed control responses for estimation is 0.549% for the first method and it is 0.53% for the
the proposed sensorless predictive control with the closed-loop proposed method.
prediction model and SMFOO at mean speed. Comparing this Figs. 10 and 11 show low-speed performances of the sensor-
figure to Figs. 6 and 8 indicates that in mean speed region less predictive control with SMFOO when the feedback loop for
the proposed SMFOO has the best response but there is no the prediction model is excluded and included, respectively. It
significant difference between Figs. 6 and 8. Therefore, the can be seen that the proposed model is stable for 60 r/min (2%)
combination of VM observer with the robust prediction model but the method is unstable if the feedback is not included. The
3430 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

Fig. 14. Experimental setup.

Fig. 12. Robustness testing of the sensorless predictive control with SMFOO.
(Simulation results).

Fig. 15. Mean speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with
Fig. 13. Frequency analysis of stator current for proposed sensorless PTC VM observer. (Experimental results).
with closed-loop prediction model. (Simulation results).

In this paper, the switching is performed at 25% of the du-

THD of stator current is changed from 39.08% to 26.74% and
ration of the control interval. Therefore, the time delay will be
the mean error for speed estimation is changed from 2.13% to
25 μs and there is no need for compensation. Note that if in
1.1%.
any special case the computations take more than 25 μs, the
In order to verify the robustness of the model, Fig. 12 shows
switching will take place when the computations are done and
the responses of the proposed method and sensorless PTC with
no problem will appear.
the open-loop prediction model and pole-shifted observer when
Fig. 15 shows the positive and negative step responses of
stator and rotor resistances are varying simultaneously. It is
the proposed sensorless predictive control with VM observer at
indicated that the proposed method is stable up to 75% variation
mean speed in approximately no load condition (the load motor
of resistances but the method with open-loop prediction model
is not energized. However, fans of drive and load motors act
and pole-shifted observer keeps the stability up to 45% variation.
as light load). It can be seen that the phase lag of the filter is
Fig. 13 compares the frequency analysis of the stator currents
compensated by the closed-loop prediction model. The method
in low-speed region for two proposed sensorless PTC meth-
can pass the zero speed with approximately 50% overshoot for
ods. It is depicted that the robust SMFOO causes lower current
flux. The THD of steady-state stator current is 20.47% and
distortion.
mean error for steady-state estimated speed is 0.97%. Fig. 16
shows the low-speed (8%) performance of the same method in
B. Experimental Results
approximately no load condition. It can be seen that the method
Fig. 14 shows the experimental setup. Industrial PC that in- does not work properly at this speed. The THD for the stator
cludes Pentium processor is used. The deadtime for the inverter current is equal to 54.11% and the mean error of the speed
is set to 2.5 μs. IPM module PM25RSB120 is used for two-level estimation is 2.9%.
VSI. Fig. 17 shows the positive and negative step responses of the
In order to have a short-time delay and also avoid the mea- proposed sensorless predictive control with SMFOO at mean
surement noise, the switching is done in the middle of the control speed in approximately no load condition. This figure shows
interval. The sequence of the actions in every control interval is that the method can pass the zero speed with approximately
as follows. 18% overshoot for flux. The THD of stator current in steady
1) Running the specified timer. state is equal to 18.9%. Fig. 18 shows speed estimation for
2) Taking the measured samples. that experiment. It can be seen that the speed estimation is
3) Performing all computations of the algorithm. maximum at very low-speed region. The mean error of speed
4) If the timer’s value has passed the prescribed point, apply estimation in steady state is 0.62%. Fig. 19 shows low speed
the selected VV and set the timer’s value to zero (2%) performance of the same method in approximately no
DAVARI et al.: USING FULL ORDER AND REDUCED ORDER OBSERVERS FOR ROBUST SENSORLESS PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL 3431

Fig. 16. Low-speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with VM

observer. (Experimental results). Fig. 20. Full load performance of the sensorless predictive control with SM-
FOO. (Experimental results).

Fig. 21. Speed estimation error for the sensorless predictive control with
SMFOO in full load condition. (Experimental results).

Fig. 17. Mean speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with
SMFOO. (Experimental results).

Fig. 18. Speed estimation error for the sensorless predictive control with Fig. 22. Frequency analysis of stator current for the proposed sensorless PTC
SMFOO. (Experimental results). with closed-loop prediction model with (a) VM observer (b) robust SMFOO.
(Experimental results).

Fig. 22 compares the spectra of the stator currents for two

proposed sensorless PTC methods in low-speed region. It is de-
picted that the proposed sensorless PTC with SMFOO contains
lower harmonic components.

VII. CONCLUSION
A novel robust sensorless prediction model for FCS-MPC
method is proposed in this paper. The prediction model is de-
veloped by using sliding mode feedbacks. Two kinds of ob-
servers, VM Observer and SMFOO, are combined with the new
Fig. 19. Low-speed performance of the sensorless predictive control with prediction model.
SMFOO. (Experimental results).
The validity of the methods is verified by simulation and ex-
perimental tests. The results show that the phase lag effect of
load condition. It can be seen that the method is robust at low low-pass filter in VM observer can be compensated by using
speed. The THD of the stator current is equal to 29.3% and the the proposed prediction model. The combination of proposed
mean error for speed estimation is 1.24%. prediction model and SMFOO results in a robust sensorless
In order to investigate the full load response Fig. 20 shows the PTC method that is stable in very low-speed region without pa-
transient response of the proposed method under the full load rameter estimation. Comparison between combinations of pro-
condition. Fig. 21 shows the speed estimation error. posed prediction model with two observers shows that when the
3432 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

proposed prediction model is combined with SMFOO, it re- [19] J. Holtz and J. Quan, “Sensorless vector control of induction motors at very
mains stable in lower speeds. The proposed method is more low speed using a nonlinear inverter model and parameter identification,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1087–1095, Jul./Aug. 2002.
robust than the combined method of common PTC with com- [20] S. A. Davari and D. A. Khaburi, “Sensorless predictive torque control by
mon observer against the uncertain stator and rotor resistances. means of sliding mode observer,” in Proc. IEEE 2nd Int. Power Energy
Therefore, the proposed robust prediction model and robust Conf., 2008, pp. 707–711.
[21] C. Lascu, I. Boldea, and F. Blaabjerg, “Direct torque control of sensor-
SMFOO create a method that possesses the advantages of the less induction motor drives: A sliding-mode approach,” IEEE Tran. Ind.
PTC method compared to the DTC method and it can be used in Electron., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 582–590, Mar./Apr. 2004.
sensorless applications. This will advance the PTC method re- [22] R. Morales-Caporal and M. Pacas, “Encoderless predictive direct torque
control for synchronous reluctance machines at very low and zero speed,”
sulting in it becoming a superior alternative for the DTC method IEEE Tran. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4408–4416, Dec. 2008.
in industrial applications. [23] R. Morales-Caporaland and M. Pacas, “Suppression of saturation effects in
a sensorless predictive controlled synchronous reluctance machine based
on voltage space phasor injections,” IEEE Tran. Ind. Electron., vol. 58,
no. 7, pp. 2809–2817, Dec. 2008.
[24] P. Landsmann, D. Paulus, P. Stolze, and R. Kennel, “Saliency based en-
REFERENCES coderless predictive torque control without signal injection,” in Proc. Int.
Power Electron. Conf., 2010, pp. 3029–3034.
[1] P. Mutschler and E. Flach, “Digital implementation of predictive direct [25] P. Landsmann, D. Paulus, P. Stolze, and R. Kennel, “Reducing the param-
control algorithms for induction motors,” in Proc. 33rd IAS Annu. Meet. eter dependency of encoderless predictive torque control for reluctance
IEEE Ind. Appl. Conf., 1998, pp. 444–451. machines,” in Proc. First Symp. Sensorless Control Electr. Drives, 2010,
[2] R. Kennel and A. Linder, “Predictive control of inverter supplied electrical pp. 93–99.
drives,” in Proc. IEEE 31st Annu. Power Elec. Specialists Conf., 2000, [26] C. Lascu and G. D. Andreescu, “Sliding-mode observer and improved
pp. 761–766. integrator with DC-offset compensation for flux estimation in sensorless-
[3] E. Flach, R. Hoffmann, and P. Mutschler, “Direct mean torque control controlled induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 3,
of an induction motor,” in Proc. Eur. Power Electron. Appl., Trondheim, pp. 785–794, Jun. 2006.
Norway, 1997, vol. 3, pp. 672–677. [27] C. Lascu, I. Boldea, and F. Blaabjerg, “Comparative study of adaptive
[4] P. Correa, M. Pacas, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive torque control for and inherently sensorless observers for variable-speed induction-motor
inverter-fed induction machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 57–65, Feb. 2006.
no. 2, pp. 1073–1079, Apr. 2007. [28] H. Kubota, K. Matsuse, and T. Nakmo, “DSP-based speed adaptive flux
[5] A. Linder, R. Kanchan, R. Kennel, and P. Stolze, Model-Based Predic- observer of induction motor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 29, no. 2,
tive Control of Electric Drives. Goettingen, Germany: Cuvillier Verlag, pp. 344–348, Mar./Apr. 1993.
2010. [29] C. Lascu and A. M. Trzynadlowski, “Combining the principles of slid-
[6] P. Cortes, P. Kazmierkowski, R. M. Kennel, D. E. Quevedo, and J. Ro- ing mode, direct torque control, and space-vector modulation in a high-
driguez, “Predictive control in power electronics and drives,” IEEE Tran. performance sensorless AC drive,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 40, no. 1,
Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4312–4324, Dec. 2008. pp. 170–177, Jan./Feb. 2004.
[7] R. Kennel, A. Linder, and M. Linke, “Generalized predictive control [30] M. Tursini, R. Petrella, and F. Parasiliti, “Adaptive sliding-mode observer
(GPC)-ready for use in drive applications,” in Proc. IEEE 32nd Ann. for speed-sensorless control of induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
Power Electron. Spec. Conf., 2001, pp. 1839–1844. vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1380–1387, Sep./Oct. 2000.
[8] K. S. Low and H. Zhuang, “Robust model predictive control and observer [31] C. Lascu, I. Boldea, and F. Blaabjerg, “Variable-structure direct torque
for direct drive applications,” IEEE Trans. Power. Electron., vol. 15, no. 6, control—A class of fast and robust controllers for induction machine
pp. 1018–1028, Nov. 2000. drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 785–792, Aug.
[9] R. Vargas, U. Ammann, and Jose Rodriguez, “Predictive approach to 2004.
increase efficiency and reduce switching losses on matrix converters,” [32] D. W. Gu, P. Hr. Petkov, and M. M. Konstantinov, Robust Control Design
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 894–902, Apr. 2009. With MATLAB. New York: Springer, Feb. 2005.
[10] S. A. Davari, D. A. Khaburi, and R. Kennel, “An improved FCS-MPC
algorithm for induction motor with imposed optimized weighting factor,”
IEEE Tran. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1540–1551, Mar. 2012.
[11] S. A. Davari, E. Hasankhan, and D. A. Khaburi, “A comparative study
of DTC-SVM with three-level inverter and an improved predictive torque
control using two-level inverter,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE Power Electron.,
Drive Syst. Technol. Conf., 2011, pp. 379–384.
[12] R. Vargas, U. Ammann, B. Hudoffsky, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive
torque control of an induction machine fed by a matrix converter with
reactive input power control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25,
no. 6, pp. 1426–1438, Jun. 2010.
[13] M. Cirrincione and M. Pucci, “An MRAS-based sensorless high-
performance induction motor drive with a predictive adaptive model,”
IEEE Tran. Ind. Electron., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 532–551, Apr. 2005.
[14] H. Abu-Rub, J. Guzinski, J. Rodriguez, R. Kennel, and P. Cortes, “Pre-
dictive current controller for sensorless induction motor drive,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Technol., 2010, pp. 1845–1850.
[15] S. Mariethoz, A. Domahidi, and M. Morari, “Sensorless explicit model
predictive control of permanent magnet synchronous motors,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Electr. Mach. Drives, 2009, pp. 1250–1257.
[16] T. Liu, C. Chen, and J. Chen, “Implementation of a predictive controller for
a sensorless IPMSM drive system,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Technol, S. Alireza Davari (S’08) was born in Tehran, Iran, in
2011, pp. 165–170. 1981. He received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees both
[17] S. A. Davari and D. A. Khaburi, “Sensorless predictive torque control of from the Iran University of Science and Technology
induction motor by means of reduced order observer,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE (IUST), Tehran, Iran, in 2006 and 2012, respectively.
Power Electron., Drive Syst. Technol. Conf., 2011, pp. 484–488. From 2007 to 2010, he was a part-time Lecturer at
[18] J. Holtz and J. Quan, “Drift- and parameter-compensated flux estimator IUST. Between 2010 and 2011, he left for a sabbatical
for persistent zero-stator-frequency operation of sensorless-controlled in- visit in Technische Universtaet Muenchen, Germany.
duction motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1052–1060, His research interests include sensorless drives, pre-
Jul./Aug. 2003. dictive control, and power electronics.
DAVARI et al.: USING FULL ORDER AND REDUCED ORDER OBSERVERS FOR ROBUST SENSORLESS PREDICTIVE TORQUE CONTROL 3433

Davood Arab Khaburi was born in 1965. He re- Ralph M. Kennel (M’90–SM’96) was born in
ceived the B.Sc. degree in electronic engineering Kaiserslautern, Germany, in 1955. He received the
in 1990 from the Sharif University of Technol- Diploma Degree and the Dr.-Ing. (Ph.D.) degree, both
ogy, Tehran, Iran, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. de- from the University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern,
grees from Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’électricité Germany, in 1979 and 1984, respectively.
et de Mécanique, Institut National Polytechnique de From 1983 to 1999, he held several several posi-
Lorraine, Nancy, France, in 1994 and 1998, respec- tions while with Robert BOSCH GmbH, Gerlingen
tively. Germany. Until 1997, he was responsible for the de-
From 1998 to 1999, he was with the Compiegne velopment of servo drives. He was one of the main
University of Technology, Compiegne, France. Since supporters of VECON and SERCOS interface, two
2000, he has been a Faculty Member in the Iran Uni- multicompany development projects for a microcon-
versity of Science and Technology (IUST), where he is a member of the Center troller and a digital interface dedicated to servo drives. Furthermore, he actively
of Excellence for Power Systems Automation and Operation. His research in- took part in the definition and release of new standards with respect to CE mark-
terests include power electronics, motor control, and digital control. ing for servo drives. Between 1997 and 1999, he was responsible for “Advanced
and Product Development of Fractional Horsepower Motors” in automotive ap-
plications. His main research activity was focused on preparing the introduction
of brushless drive concepts to the automotive market. From 1994 to 1999, he
was a Visiting Professor at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne England,
U.K. From 1999 to 2008, he was a Professor for electrical machines and drives
at Wuppertal University, Wuppertal, Germany. Since 2008, he has been a Pro-
fessor in the Department of Electrical Drive systems and Power Electronics,
Fengxiang Wang was born in Jiujiang, China, in Technische Universtaet Muenchen, Muenchen, Germany. His current research
1982. He received the B.S. degree in electronic en- interests include sensorless control of ac drives, predictive control of power
gineering and the M.S. degree in automation from electronics, and hardware-in-the-loop systems.
Nanchang Hangkong University, Nanchang, China, Dr. Kennel is a Fellow of IEE and a Chartered Engineer in the U.K. Within
in 2005 and 2008, respectively. Since 2009, he has IEEE he is the Treasurer of the Germany Section as well as the Vice-President,
been working toward the Ph.D. degree in the De- Meetings of the Power Electronics Society.
partment of Power Electronics and Electrical Drive,
Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
His research interests include predictive control
and sensorless control for machines.