Circuits and Systems, 2016, 7, 3670-3684

http://www.scirp.org/journal/cs
ISSN Online: 2153-1293
ISSN Print: 2153-1285

Single Phase Induction Motor Drive with

Restrained Speed and Torque Ripples Using
Neural Network Predictive Controller

S. Saravanan1*, K. Geetha2
1
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sri Sai Ram Institute of Technology, Chennai, India
2
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Karpagam Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, India

How to cite this paper: Saravanan, S. and Abstract

Geetha, K. (2016) Single Phase Induction
Motor Drive with Restrained Speed and In industrial drives, electric motors are extensively utilized to impart motion control
Torque Ripples Using Neural Network and induction motors are the most familiar drive at present due to its extensive per-
Predictive Controller. Circuits and Systems, formance characteristic similar with that of DC drives. Precise control of drives is the
7, 3670-3684.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/cs.2016.711309
main attribute in industries to optimize the performance and to increase its produc-
tion rate. In motion control, the major considerations are the torque and speed rip-
Received: May 12, 2016 ples. Design of controllers has become increasingly complex to such systems for bet-
Accepted: May 30, 2016 ter management of energy and raw materials to attain optimal performance. Meager
Published: September 13, 2016
parameter appraisal results are unsuitable, leading to unstable operation. The rapid in-
Copyright © 2016 by authors and tensification of digital computer revolutionizes to practice precise control and allows
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. implementation of advanced control strategy to extremely multifaceted systems. To
This work is licensed under the Creative solve complex control problems, model predictive control is an authoritative scheme,
Commons Attribution International
which exploits an explicit model of the process to be controlled. This paper presents
License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ a predictive control strategy by a neural network predictive controller based single
Open Access phase induction motor drive to minimize the speed and torque ripples. The proposed
method exhibits better performance than the conventional controller and validity of
the proposed method is verified by the simulation results using MATLAB software.

Keywords
Dynamic Model, Low Torque Ripples, Neural Model, Neural Network Predictive
Controller, Unstable Operation, Single Phase Induction Motor, Variable Speed
Drives

1. Introduction
In recent years, automatic controls are indispensable to the process industries in order

DOI: 10.4236/cs.2016.711309 September 13, 2016

 S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

to minimize complexity of plants control, to maximize the production rate and to meet
sharper specification of product quality [1]-[3]. This stipulates the continuous moni-
toring and control of Industrial Drives (ID) for set point tracking as well as for distur-
bance rejection [4]-[6]. Suppressing the influence of external disturbances is the most
common objective and it is requisite to originate a complex control mechanism that
will make the proper changes on the drive to cancel the negative impact, resulting in
stable operation of the process with fast response [7] [8]. Nonlinear behavior is very
common in nature of almost all the industrial processes; design of stabilizing controller
is always preferred to optimize the production [1]. But mathematical modeling of such
systems is tremendously exigent due to the association of higher order system equations,
which makes additional complication in control parameter evaluation, design and im-
plementation of suitable controller [5]-[7] [9]. Besides most of the controller tuning
methods requiring accurate mathematical model of the system to be controlled either in
first order with dead time or in the second order form, to accomplish any of this to
higher order systems, superior computation skills and time devastating are entailed [2]
[10]-[12].
Conventional control is still being used due to its simple structure, high consistency
and works well for linear processes with small change in process parameters [2]. But, if
the process has a strong interference and ambiguity with a high degree of nonlinearity,
only relying on normal Proportional Integral (PI) control is not effective; the use of
Neural Network (NN) based controller is the viable alternative, and Model Predictive
Control (MPC) is a promising substitute, in the modern era to such composite systems
[6] [7] [9] [11]-[15]. Furthermore the high flexibility, powerful and fast acting micro-
processors consent to implement such more complex control schemes with fast dy-
namics [14].
The main concept of the MPC is based on the calculation of the future system beha-
vior to compute optimal manipulated variables. The control variable is the converter
output voltage, in the form of a continuous duty cycle. Several MPC methods are used
in real time applications [13]-[15]. In this work, Neural Network Predictive Controller
(NNPC) based speed controller is designed to a Single Phase Induction Motor (SPIM)
and is compared with PI controller. The MATLAB simulation results validate that the
proposed NNPC performs better than the conventional PI controller.

2. Conventional Controllers
The controllers such as hysteresis based current controllers [1], PSO based controllers
[2] [3], genetic algorithm based controllers [9], flux controllers [12], predictive torque
controllers [5] [14] and other complex control structures are implemented for induc-
tion motors (IM). However, most of the concepts which have been presented in the said
literature focus either on current or torque or flux control, which still requires cascade
structure. Nevertheless these structures require a rushed acting controller in the inner
loop compared to its outer loop, which makes dependency and entail speed to torque or
current converters [16]. Torque or flux limiter makes complexity in the control struc-
ture. These limitations have been overcome by direct speed control approaches [14] [16].

3671
S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

2.1. Vector Controlled Schemes

As SPIM comprise unsymmetrical windings, consequences unbalanced impedances,
which lead unequal currents. Since the vector control strategies are based on a balanced
drive system involving symmetrical motors, it is difficult to fix the phase difference
between windings current of 90 degree in SPIM and may require complex implementa-
tion to eliminate the unbalanced operation [17]. Modified stator voltage equations are
used to compensate its unbalanced operations and implementation of vector control to
unbalanced SPIM drive is more complex than for symmetrical motor. Vector con-
trolled two phase induction motor (TPIM) has been recommended as an alternative to
SPIM, but still it requires complex coordinate transformations and expressions [17] [18].
Further, TPIM require converters and inverters to employ it with single phase supply.
The essential parameters to the implement of vector-control have been measured
precisely and obtained on the conduct of no-load and blocked-rotor tests to the sym-
metrical machines. Were as in unsymmetrical machines, they produce negative and
positive torque during their operation, which makes complication in parameter estima-
tion and leads unbalanced operation [17] [18].

2.2. Limitations of Direct Torque Control

Hysteresis controllers with PWM generation increases the complexity, transformations
are required to get the abc frame optimum reference current which complicate the con-
trol algorithm and cannot controls the torque directly to get fast torque response [1].
Further they are not prompt like conventional controllers, because it can easily regulate
the speed of varying references of torque and flux. DTC switching table fails to consider
the circuit limitations, such as neutral-point-balance and smooth vector switching caused
by the topology of three-level inverters [19]. Drive performance remains relatively low
due to the increase of CPU time, which is linked to the complex vector selection table,
low dynamic and higher torque ripple with variable switching frequency [7] [20].
Selection of the inverter states entails the position information of stator flux linkage
and direct axis (d-axis) to define the required sector. Correct inverter states selection
are essential, that should be used based on the stator flux and torque errors which re-
quires high computational time and composite control logic [12] [21].

3. Single Phase Induction Motor Model

Due to outstanding technical developments in control areas and its control simplicity
than mechanical drives IM are extensively utilized in range from fractional to few kilo
Watts [11]. Tremendous growth in power electronics let it to achieve optimum re-
sponse with reduced energy in cost-effective method.
Figure 1 illustrates the circuit diagram for speed control of proposed SPIM [14]. The
dynamic model of a SPIM using stationary reference frame on neglecting the iron loss
and core saturation are given as below [17].
ids rds + ρ ( ids Lds + idr Ldm )
uds = (1)

3672
 S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

V/2 S1 S3

V/2 S4 S2 SPIM

Figure 1. Circuit diagram for speed control of proposed single phase induction motor.

(
iqs rqs + ρ iqs Lqs + iqr Lqm
uqs = ) (2)

0 and ψ
idr rr + ρψ dr + ωrψ qr = = dr idr Lr + ids Ldm (3)

0 and ψ
iqr rr + ρψ qr − ωrψ dr = = qr iqr Lr + iqs Lqm (4)

where, ωr is the angular speed of the rotor and ρ is the derivation operator. uds, uqs, ids,
iqs, idr and iqr respectively are stator voltage, stator and rotor currents in the d-q axis. ψdr
and ψqr are the d-q axis rotor fluxes. rds, rqs and rr are the stator resistances in the d-q
axis and rotor resistance respectively.
Lds = (Llds + Ldm), Lqs = (Llqs + Lqm) and Lr are the self inductances of stator in the d-q
axis and self inductance of rotor.
Ldm, Lqm, Llds and Llqs respectively are the magnetizing inductances and stator leakage
inductances in the d-q axis.

=Tel
Ρ
2
{ ( ) (
Lqs iqs idr − Lds ids iqr )} (5)

The load torque and electromagnetic torque are given by

 dω r  Ρ  Ρ 
J + Bωr  +  TL  =
 Tel  (6)
 dt  2  2 
The drive attains steady state speed, when TL = Tm α Tel, where, P, J, B, Tel, Tm and TL
respectively are the number of poles, moment of inertia, friction, electromagnetic tor-
que, mechanical torque at shaft and the load torque.
Non linear performance is general nature in almost all the systems, design of closed
loop control arrangement is always preferred in process industries for superior man-
agement of energy and raw materials in order to maximize its manufacture rate [2]. To
reduce the deviation between the set point (SP) and the process variable (PV) and to
maintain the controlled variable (CV) at the desired value, controllers are introduced.
Usually the Proportional (P) controllers are used in the sluggish processes, where as PI
controllers are used in the fast process like speed and flow processes. Here, PI controller
is designed with Kp = 15.411 and τi = 0.13128 based on Cohen and Coon setting; where,
Kp is the proportional gain and τi is the integral time.

4. Proposed Neural Network Predictive Controller

Attaining quality with increasing awareness of environmental responsibility imposes far

3673
S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

strict demands on control and that can be met by traditional techniques alone. Apart
from PI control, a completely different controller design paradigm such as model based
control is used, these control algorithms utilizes an explicit plant model to predict fu-
ture behavior of the plant and creates control signals based on the present error. Im-
plementation of MPC needs linearization because it uses linear models [13]. To highly
nonlinear processes such as IM, systems entail servo problems and subjected frequent
disturbances a non-linear model is essential. Such circumstances NNPC provides better
control since it uses NM of plant to predict future performance and controller then
calculates control input that will optimize the plant performance over a specified future
time horizon [22].

4.1. System Identification

There are two steps involved in the implementation of NNPC; the first step depends
strongly on the identification of system model to train the neural network (NN) to
represent the forward dynamics of the plant [22] [23]. The NN plant model uses pre-
vious inputs and previous outputs to predict future values of process output [13] [23].
The prediction error between the system output and the NN output is used as the NN
training signal. This network is trained using Levenberg-Marquardt (Trainlm) algo-
rithm.

4.2. Predictive Control

The second step is controller design, NM predicts the systems response over a specified
time horizon and are used by a numerical optimization function to determine control
signal to minimizes the performance criterion over the given horizon [22],
Nα

∑ { yr ( t + i ) − ym ( t + i )}
N2
+ σ ∑ {v′ ( t + i − 1) − v′ ( t + i − 2 )}
2 2
=J (7)
=i N=
1 i 1

where,
N1, and N2 are define the horizons over which the tracking error,
Nu is the control increments to be evaluated,
v' is the tentative control signal,
yr is the desired response,
ym is the network model response.
The “σ” value determines the contribution that the sum of the squares of the control
increments has on the performance index.

5. Simulation Results
To validate the proposed NNPC scheme, a simulation using MATLAB has been created
for a SPIM with 0.25 hp, 220 V, 50 Hz, 4 pole motor for servo and regulatory problems,
the parameters are given in Table 1. Since the machine is quarter hp, its full load torque
is 0.65 N-m; it is assumed that it may require negligible torque to compensate the fric-
tional loss and is if employed with contact less sensors for speed feedback.

3674
 S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

Table 1. Parameters of proposed SPIM.

Motor Parameters Numerical Value

Rsm 2.02 Ω
R′rm 4.12 Ω
Lsm 8.88 e−3 H
L′rm 6.72 e−3 H
Rsa 7.14 Ω;
Lsa 10.2 e−3 H
Lm 0.21264 H
J 0.0416 kg∙m2
Turns Ratio 1.25

5.1. Servo Response

The open loop response of the proposed SPIM at no load is shown in Figure 2; in
which the linear region lies between 450 rpm and 1430 rpm. But running the machine
at too low speed with full load is not possible without sacrificing its speed or torque be-
 1
cause of its inverse characteristic nature  Nα  . Here, at full load on considering
 T 
1300 rpm as mid value in the linear region, from which it is possible to amend ±140
rpm (1440 rpm and 1160 rpm) being considered as future change in set point. Unlike
PI controllers, the NNPC can able to operate well in the non linear regions up to some
extent, here the proposed controller works well for the speed ranges between 1120 rpm
and 1440 rpm at full load.
A well designed controller must follow the set point changes for future inputs, this is
referred as servo problems in control system terminology. If the controller does not
operate satisfactorily for set point changes then there is no use of such controllers, a
simple ON-OFF controller can perform the same work. Further the cost involved is
very high. So, it is required to simulate and to verify the servo response of the process
with the proposed controller. If the proposed controller performs satisfactorily then
only the designed controller is implemented in real time process otherwise the design is
to be modified. The servo response of conventional PI controller and NNPC are shown
in Figure 3. From the servo response it is proven that designed controllers provide sa-
tisfied response for 1300 rpm, 1440 rpm and 1120 rpm at full load torque of 0.65 N-m.

5.2. Steady State Speed Response

The transient part is not much important for industrial drives because it will quickly
reach steady state, in most cases the load is linked after the drive attains steady speed.
Further the motor operates in the stable region when the motor torque is equals to load
torque. Otherwise the motor goes to unstable region results drastic speed changes and
failure of operation. So it is requisite to analyze the steady state behavior of the drive,
the steady state responses for set speeds of 1300 rpm, 1440 rpm and 1120 rpm respec-
tively at full load are shown in Figures 4(a)-(c), In all the cases it is seen that the

3675
S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

1800
OPEN LOOP RESPONSE
1600

1400 NONLINEAR REGION

1200
SPEED (RPM)

1000
LINEAR REGION

800

600

400

NONLINEAR REGION
200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
T IME (S)

Figure 2. Open loop response of the proposed single phase induction motor at no load.

1600
SET SPEED
PI RESPONSE
1400 NNPC RESPONSE

1200

1000
SPEED (RPM)

800

600

400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
T IME (S)

Figure 3. Servo response of SPIM with NNPC and PI controller.

3676
 S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

1305 SET SPEED

NNPC RESPONSE
PI RESPONSE

1300
SPEED (RPM)

1295

1290
3.78 3.8 3.82 3.84 3.86 3.88 3.9 3.92 3.94 3.96 3.98
T IME (S)
(a)

SET SPEED
1442 PI RESPONSE
NNPC RESPONSE
1441

1440

1439
SPEED (RPM)

1438

1437

1436

1435

1434

1433
5 5.02 5.04 5.06 5.08 5.1 5.12
T IME (S)
(b)

3677
S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

1125 SET SPEED

PI RESPONSE
NNPC RESPONSE
1124

1123

1122
SPEED (RPM)

1121

1120

1119

1118

1117
8.275 8.28 8.285 8.29 8.295
T IME (S)
(c)

Figure 4. (a) Steady state response at full load (at 1300 rpm); (b) Steady state response at full load (at 1440 rpm); (c) Steady state
response at full load (at 1120 rpm).

NNPC response is closer to the set speed of the motor compared to PI controller re-
sponse, the steady state response for different set speed proves that the proposed con-
troller provides better performance than the conventional PI controller.

5.3. Regulatory Response

Industrial processes are subjected to recurrent supply voltage and load variations, these
are referred as load changes in the control system terminology. Consequences frequent
variations in the drives speed, which affect both drives performance and product quali-
ty. From this it is obligatory to check whether the designed controller can suppress the
load disturbances effectively or not and we call it has regulatory problems. Normally
the controllers are checked with 2% to 5% of load disturbances, the maximum allowa-
ble load changes are up to 5% of the final value. Regulatory responses for 5% rising and
decreasing load torques (at 2 seconds) are shown respectively in Figure 5(a) and Fig-
ure 5(b). It is shown that the proposed NNPC effectively discards the load torque vari-
ations at a given set speed.

6. Electromagnetic Torque
The electromagnetic torque corresponding to the afore said set speeds given in servo

3678
 S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

1360 SET SPEED

NNPC RESPONSE
PI RESPONSE

1340

1320
SPEED (RPM)

1300

1280

1260

1240

1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4

T IME (S)
(a)

1400
SET SPEED
NNPC RESPONSE
PI RESPONSE

1350
SPEED (RPM)

1300

1250

1200

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

T IME (S)
(b)

Figure 5. (a) Regulatory response for 5% load addition; (b) Regulatory response for 5% load reduction.

3679
S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

problem are shown in Figure 6, from this it have been evidently proven that, the NNPC
had low torque ripples than the PI controllers.

Steady State Torque Response

The steady state torque at 1300 rpm, 1440 rpm and 1120 rpm of set speeds are respec-
tively shown in Figures 7(a)-(c).
There is ripple in speed, from Figures 4(a)-(c) it is seen that the proposed NNPC
have low speed ripples than PI controller. From Figures 7(a)-(c) it is known that the
proposed NNPC exhibit low torque ripples than the PI controller. From Table 2 it is
revealed that the torque and speed ripples are less with proposed NNPC compared to
PI controller.

7. Conclusion
In this research, neural network predictive controller has been designed and it uses
neural model of the nonlinear plant for identification. The NM uses previous inputs
and previous plant outputs for prediction of future values of the plant response. Based
on the predicted plant output of the NM, the future error is estimated and the control-
ler output is modified according to this predicted future error. Due to this action the
error is suppressed prior to its actual appearance in the process that is why its perfor-
mance is superior to the other controllers. This network has been trained offline in

16
PI
14
NNPC
12

10
ELECTROMAGNETIC TORQUE (N-m)

-2

-4

-6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
T IME (S)

Figure 6. Electromagnetic torque.

3680
 S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

4
PI
NNPC
3
ELECTROMAGNETIC TORQUE (N-m)

-1

-2

-3

1.62 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.7 1.72 1.74

T IME (S)
(a)

PI
NNPC
6
ELECTROMAGNETIC TORQUE (N-m)

-2

5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.1 5.11 5.12 5.13

T IME (S)
(b)

3681
S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

3
PI
NNPC
2
ELECTROMAGNETIC TORQUE (N-m)

-1

-2

-3

8.72 8.725 8.73 8.735 8.74 8.745 8.75 8.755 8.76 8.765 8.77
T IME (S)
(c)

Figure 7. (a) Steady state torque at 1300 rpm; (b) Steady state torque at 1440 rpm; (c) Steady state torque at 1120 rpm.

Table 2. Speed ripples in% of final speed and torque average.

% Speed Ripples Torque Average

Set Speed (rpm)
NNPC PI Control NNPC PI Control

1120 0.026 0.133 0.349 0.7485

1300 0.1 0.273 0.481 1.2575

1440 0.211 0.35 0.04 0.15

batch mode, using the data collected from the plant which is to be controlled. The de-
signed controller calculates the control input that will optimize the plant performance
over the specified future time horizon.
In this work, speed control of SPIM using PI controller and NNPC control technique
has been analyzed using a MATLAB environment with a computer of 2.27 GHz core i3
processor with 2.00 GB RAM memory and compared. In the servo and regulatory per-
formances, both techniques provide a fast speed dynamic performance, but in steady
state the NNPC has lower speed ripples and is very close to the set value compared to
conventional controller. Further, the electric torque has lower ripple in the NNPC
compared to PI controller. From the simulation results, it is obtained that NNPC pro-
vides a comparative performance than the conventional controller.

3682
 S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

References
[1] Alsofyani, I.M. and Idris, N.R.N. (2016) Simple Flux Regulation for Improving State Esti-
mation at Very Low and Zero Speed of a Speed Sensorless Direct Torque Control of an In-
duction Motor. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 31, 3027-3035.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2015.2447731
[2] Latha, K., Rajinikanth, V. and Surekha, P.M. (2013) PSO-Based PID Controller Design for a
Class of Stable and Unstable Systems. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Cairo, 1-11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/543607
[3] Sakthivel, V.P., Bhuvaneswari, R. and Subramanian, S. (2010) Economic Design of Three-
Phase Induction Motor by Particle Swarm Optimization. Journal of Electromagnetic Analy-
sis and Applications, 2, 301-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jemaa.2010.25039
[4] Song, W.S., Ma, J.P., Zhou, L. and Feng, X.Y. (2016) Deadbeat Predictive Power Control of
Single-Phase Three-Level Neutral-Point-Clamped Converters Using Space-Vector Modula-
tion for Electric Railway Traction. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 31, 721-732.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2015.2400924
[5] Rajinikanth, V. and Latha, K. (2012) Set Point Weighted PID Controller Tuning for Unsta-
ble System Using Heuristic Algorithm. Archives of Control Sciences, 22, 481-505.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10170-011-0037-8
[6] Naga Sujatha, K. and Vaisakh, K. (2010) Implementation of Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Infe-
rence System in Speed Control of Induction Motor Drives. Journal of Intelligent Learning
Systems and Applications, 2, 110-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jilsa.2010.22014
[7] Fu, X.G. and Li, S.H. (2015) A Novel Neural Network Vector Control Technique for Induc-
tion Motor Drive. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 30, 1428-1437.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEC.2015.2436914
[8] Riveros, J.A., Barrero, F., Levi, E., Durán, M.J., Toral, S. and Jones, M. (2013) Variable-
Speed Five-Phase Induction Motor Drive Based on Predictive Torque Control. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 60, 2957-2968.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2012.2198034
[9] Aly, A.A. (2011) PID Parameters Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm Technique for
Electro hydraulic Servo Control System. Intelligent Control and Automation, 2, 69-76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ica.2011.22008
[10] Rajinikanth, V. and Latha, K. (2012) Tuning and Retuning of PID Controller for Unstable
Systems Using Evolutionary Algorithm. ISRN Chemical Engineering, 2012, Article ID:
693545. http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/693545
[11] Li, J., Ren, H.-P. and Zhong, Y.-R. (2015) Robust Speed Control of Induction Motor Drives
Using First-Order Auto-Disturbance Rejection Controllers. IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, 51, 712-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2014.2330062
[12] Asseu, O., Kouacou, M.A., Ori, T.R., Yéo, Z., Koffi, M. and Lin-Shi, X. (2010) Nonlinear
Control of an Induction Motor Using a Reduced-Order Extended Sliding Mode Observer
for Rotor Flux and Speed Sensorless Estimation. Engineering, 2, 813-819.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2010.210104
[13] Zhang, Y.C. and Yang, H.T. (2014) Model Predictive Torque Control of Induction Motor
Drives with Optimal Duty Cycle Control. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 29,
6593-6603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2014.2302838
[14] Fuentes, E., Kalise, D., Rodríguez, J. and Kennel, R.M. (2014) Cascade-Free Predictive
Speed Control for Electrical Drives. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 61,
2176-2184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2013.2272280

3683
S. Saravanan, K. Geetha

[15] Vasičkaninová, A. and Bakošová, M. (2009) Neural Network Predictive Control of a Chem-
ical Reactor. Acta Chimica Slovaca, 2, 21-36.
[16] Preindl, M. and Bolognan, S. (2013) Model Predictive Direct Speed Control with Finite
Control Set of PMSM Drive Systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 28, 1007-
1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2204277
[17] Jang, D.-H. (2013) Problems Incurred in a Vector-Controlled Single-Phase Induction Mo-
tor and a Proposal for a Vector-Controlled Two-Phase Induction Motor as a Replacement.
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 28, 526-536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2199772
[18] Ziaeinejad, S., Sangsefidi, Y., Nabi, H.P. and Shoulaie, A. (2013) Direct Torque Control of
Two-Phase Induction and Synchronous Motors. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
28, 4041-4050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2230409
[19] Zhang, Y., Zhu, J., Zhao, Z., Xu, W. and Dorrell, D.G. (2012) An Improved Direct Torque
Control for Three-Level Inverter-Fed Induction Motor Sensorless Drive. IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, 27, 1502-1513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2010.2043543
[20] El Badsi, B., Bouzidi, B. and Masmoudi, A. (2013) DTC Scheme for a Four-Switch Inver-
ter-Fed Induction Motor Emulating the Six-Switch Inverter Operation. IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, 28, 3528-3538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2225449
[21] Gule, N. and Maarten Kamper, J. (2012) Multiphase Cage-Rotor Induction-Machine Drive
with Direct Implementation of Brush DC Operation. IEEE Transactions on Industry Ap-
plications, 48, 2014-2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2012.2226195
[22] Demuth, H. and Beale, M. (2003) Neural Network Toolbox for Use with MATLAB. User
Guide, the MATH WORKS Inc.
[23] Marcic, T., Štumberger, B. and Štumberger, G. (2012) Comparison of Induction Motor and
Line-Start IPM Synchronous Motor Performance in a Variable-Speed Drive. IEEE Transac-
tions on Industry Applications, 48, 2341-2352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2012.2227095

Submit or recommend next manuscript to SCIRP and we will provide best service
for you:
Accepting pre-submission inquiries through Email, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.
A wide selection of journals (inclusive of 9 subjects, more than 200 journals)
Providing 24-hour high-quality service
User-friendly online submission system
Fair and swift peer-review system
Efficient typesetting and proofreading procedure
Display of the result of downloads and visits, as well as the number of cited articles
Maximum dissemination of your research work
Submit your manuscript at: http://papersubmission.scirp.org/

3684