energies

Article
Model Predictive Control for PMSM Based on Discrete Space
Vector Modulation with RLS Parameter Identification
Hao Yu, Jiajun Wang * and Zhuangzhuang Xin

School of Automation, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China; yh19858182060@163.com (H.Y.);
xinzhuangzhuang@hdu.edu.cn (Z.X.)
* Correspondence: wangjiajun@hdu.edu.cn

Abstract: Model Predictive Control (MPC) based on Discrete Space Vector Modulation (DSVM)
has the advantages of simple mathematical model and fast dynamic response. It is widely used in
permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM). Additionally, the control performance of DSVM-
MPC is influenced by the accuracy of motor parameters and the select speed of optimal voltage vector.
In order to identify motor parameters accurately, model predictive control for PMSM based on discrete
space vector modulation with recursive least squares (RLS) parameter identification is proposed in this
paper. Additionally, a method to preselect candidate voltage vectors is proposed to select the optimal
voltage vector more quickly. The simulation model of RLS-DSVM-MPC is established to simulate
the influence of different parameters on PMSM performance. The simulation results show that
model predictive control for PMSM based on discrete space vector modulation with RLS parameter
identification has a better control performance than that of without RLS parameter identification.

Keywords: permanent magnet synchronous motor; model predictive control; discrete space vector
modulation; recursive least squares method; online parameter identification

Citation: Yu, H.; Wang, J.; Xin, Z.

1. Introduction
Model Predictive Control for PMSM
Based on Discrete Space Vector Permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) has the advantages of simple structure,
Modulation with RLS Parameter high power density and wide speed regulation range [1]. It is widely used in industrial
Identification. Energies 2022, 15, 4041. robots, new energy vehicles, aerospace, and other application fields, and it is of great
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15114041 significance to improve the control performance of PMSM [2].
Field oriented control (FOC) and direct torque control (DTC) are control methods
Academic Editor: Anibal De Almeida
widely used in PMSM. FOC can realize accurate control with little speed and torque ripple,
Received: 2 April 2022 but it has slow torque response because of the PI controllers [3]. Reference [4] proposes an
Accepted: 30 May 2022 indirect FOC method for six-phase induction motor, in which the pulse width modulation
Published: 31 May 2022 signals controls two sets of three-phase voltage source inverters, respectively. DTC has fast
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
dynamic response, but it has disadvantages of high torque ripple and current harmonics,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and its switching frequency is not constant. Reference [5] proved that the electromagnetic
published maps and institutional affil- torque in PMSM is proportional to the angle between the stator and rotor flux linkage.
iations. In [6], space vector modulation (SVM) is applied to DTC, and through the output duty
cycle of SVM, the switching frequency was able to be fixed.
In addition to FOC and DTC, model predictive control (MPC) is widely used in
power converters and motor control systems, for that it has the advantages of simple
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. structure, fast dynamic response, and accurate control in steady state [7,8]. MPC can be
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. divided into continuous control set (CCS-MPC) and finite control set (FCS-MPC) according
This article is an open access article to the type of optimization problem. CCS-MPC calculates the desired voltage vector,
distributed under the terms and and then outputs the corresponding duty cycle through the modulator, thus it has a fixed
conditions of the Creative Commons switching frequency [9]. The commonly used CCS-MPC methods are generalized predictive
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
control (GPC) and explicit model predictive control (EMPC) [10,11]. GPC is mainly used
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
to solves linear and unconstrained problems, while EMPC mainly solves nonlinear and
4.0/).

Energies 2022, 15, 4041. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15114041 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 4041 2 of 16

constrained problems. FCS-MPC only uses the voltage vectors that actually exist in the
inverter, and it does not require modulator adjustment or duty cycle calculation, so it
has fast dynamic response speed and uncertain switching frequency. FCS-MPC can be
divided into optimal switching vector (OSV-MPC) [12] and optimal switching sequence
(OSS-MPC) [13]. OSV-MPC is currently the most widely used MPC method for power
electronics applications. It uses a limited number of voltage vectors as the control set,
which reduces the application difficulty of MPC. Meanwhile, OSV-MPC output only one
switching sequence in a switching cycle, this led to the increased current and torque ripple.
OSS-MPC takes the possible switching sequences in a switching cycle as a control set, and
then uses time as an additional constraint to select the optimal switching sequence, so
OSS-MPC can act like a modulator.
In recent years, FCS-MPC has been developed and successfully applied in a variety of
power converters. Reference [14] proposes a general FCS model predictive torque control
(MPTC) method for power converter and driver, which can be controlled easily and does
not require additional modulation techniques or internal cascaded control loops. In [15],
a multi-step prediction MPTC method is proposed, which can achieve prediction over a
range of 150 time steps by using extrapolation and boundary methods, and the discrete-
time controller of the drive system derived from physical equations is able to reduce the
switching frequency by 50%. Reference [16] compares FOC with MPTC for induction
motors, certified that MPTC has better control performance under transient conditions.
For the problem that traditional MPC applies only one voltage vector in switch-
ing cycle, researchers proposed an algorithm based on multi-voltage vector synthesis.
Reference [17] takes the torque and flux errors as constraints, optimizes the switching
sequence and duty cycle by minimizing the torque and flux linkage errors, and finally
reduces the switching losses. With the development of MPC, discrete space vector modula-
tion (DSVM) is used to increase the number of candidate voltage vectors in MPC, which
can further improve the control performance of motor[18]. Different from the traditional
MPC that only considers the effective voltage vector when switching, the DSVM-MPC
method presynthesizes a certain number of virtual voltage vectors in one switching cy-
cle. The optimal voltage vector that minimizes the error of constraints such as current,
torque, or flux linkage is selected by the value function, and the switching state corre-
sponding to the optimal voltage vector is applied to the three-phase inverter to achieve
high-performance control of PMSM. Reference [19] proposed a DSVM-DTC method based
on fuzzy logic, which divides the switching cycle into three equal parts, and uses three
effective voltage vectors in each switching cycle to synthesize a new virtual voltage vector.
A DSVM-MPC method with constant switching frequency and low sampling frequency
is proposed in [20], where real voltage vectors are used together with newly synthesized
virtual voltage vectors. In [21], a model predictive torque control method with extended
control set is proposed, which can further increase the number of candidate voltage vectors
and reduces torque pulsation.
However, more candidate voltage vectors bring greater computational burden and
longer time to select the optimal voltage vector. To solve these problem, researchers have
made a lot of efforts. Reference [22] proposes a method based on sliding mode preselection,
which can reduce the number of candidate voltage vectors from 19 to 10, and can save the
execution time of the entire control algorithm. Reference [23] uses the deadbeat technique
to obtain the expected voltage vector, and then selects the candidate voltage vector which
is closest to it. A robust deadbeat DSVM-MPC method is proposed in [24], which has
high-quality current waveform and fixed switching frequency. Reference [25] proposes
twenty modulated voltage space vectors with fixed duty cycle, and a preselection method
is designed to filter out unreasonable voltage vectors, which can reduce the computational
burden caused by the increased number of voltage space vectors. Reference [26] uses the
DTC switching table to reduce the number of candidate voltage vectors, and prove that it
has similar control performance to conventional MPTC. This paper also proposes a method
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 3 of 16

for preselecting the candidate voltage vectors, which can reduce the number of candidate
voltage vectors from 38 to 13.
DSVM can improve the control performance of MPC for PMSM, furthermore, im-
proving the accuracy of PMSM parameters can also make contribution to it. There are
mainly two kinds of parameter estimation to improve the accuracy of PMSM parameters,
one offline parameter estimation and the other online [27]. Offline estimation is widely
used in the machine and controller design. Reference [28] proposes an offline identification
method and accurately predicts the machine parameters. However, the offline estimation
cannot identify the variation of parameters in real time, especially for some parameters
which are greatly influenced by operating conditions. Meanwhile, the online estimation
method is primarily concerned with real-time [7]. In [29], the recursive least squares (RLS)
estimator is used to estimate the incremental stator inductances online, rather than using a
conventional offline look-up table. In this paper, an online parameter identification method
using RLS is proposed, by which accurate PMSM parameters can be identified and updated
for DSVM-MPC in real time.
The remainder of this paper is organized as following four sections. The principles of
RLS-DSVM-MPC are provided in Section 2. The implementation of RLS-DSVM-MPC is
given in Section 3. The results analysis from model simulation validation is provided in
Section 4. Additionally, some conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2. The Principles of RLS-DSVM-MPC

2.1. The Mathematical Model of PMSM
The PMSM voltage equation in the d-q axis is shown in Equation (1):
          
vd Rs − ωe Lq id L 0 i 0
= + d p d + ωe (1)
vq ωe Ld Rs iq 0 Lq iq ψ pm

where vd and vq are the voltage of d and q axes, respectively; Ld and Lq are the inductance of
d and q axes, respectively; id and iq are the stator current of d and q axes, respectively; Rs is
the stator resistance; ωe is the electrical angular velocity of the rotor; ψ pm is the permanent
magnet flux linkage of rotor; and p represents the difference d/dt.

2.2. The Principles of MPCC

Model predictive current control (MPCC) predicts current according to the discrete
mathematical model of PMSM, and uses the constraint relationship between the expected
value and the predicted value to select the optimal voltage vector to reduce current harmon-
ics and torque pulsation. In this paper, id and iq are selected as the states to be predicted.
The PMSM discrete current equation in the d–q axis [24] is shown in Equation (2):

îs (k + 1) = Ais (k) + Bus (k) + C (2)

where
   
a a12 1 − Rs Ts /Ld Lq Ts ωe (k)/Ld
A= 11 =
a21 a22 − Ld Ts ωe (k)/Lq 1 − Rs Ts /Lq
   
b 0 T /L 0
B= 11 = s d
0 b22 0 Ts /Lq
   
0 0
C= =
cp −ψ pm Ts ωe (k)/Lq
 T
îs (k + 1) represents the current of stator at moment k + 1;is (k) = id (k) iq (k ) and
 T
us (k) = ud (k) uq (k) represent the current and voltage of d and q axes at moment k,
respectively; Ts represents the sample time.
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 4 of 16

In the control system, there exists a delay of 2Ts in current sampling and the inverter’s
conversion, and the error between the expected and actual current is used to define the cost
function. The cost function is expressed as
2 2
J (Vn ) = iref
d − îd ( k + 2) + λ iref
q − îq ( k + 2) (3)

Vopt = argminJ (Vn ) (4)

where iref ref

d and iq represent the expected current of d and q axes, respectively;λ is de-
fined as the weighting coefficient; Vn (n = 1, . . . , ntotal ) represents the voltage vector;
Vopt represents the optimal voltage vector; îd (k + 2) and îq (k + 2) can be derived from
Equation (2).

2.3. The Principles of DSVM

DSVM divides each sampling period into N segments, and uses eight basic voltage
vectors to synthesize a certain number of virtual voltage vectors in each sampling period
to expand the number of candidate voltage vectors. The basic voltage vectors and virtual
voltage vectors are expressed as Equations (5) and (6), and the number of all the voltage
vectors is expressed as Equation (7):

2
Vb = V (S + S3 ei2π/3 + S5 e−i2π/3 ) (5)
3 dc 1

vvir = ∑ t j V j , t j = Ts /N (6)
j=1,...,N

ntotal = 3N 2 + 3N + 2 (7)
where Vb ∈ {V0 , . . . , V7 } represents the basic voltage vectors; S1 ,S3 , and S5 represent the
switching signals of converter; vvir represents the virtual voltage vectors,t j represents the
work time of basic voltage vectors.ntotal represents the number of all the voltage vectors.
Reference [18] proposes that when the sampling period is divided into three equal
parts (N = 3), the discrete space vector modulation method can significantly reduce current
harmonics and torque ripple, and there are 38 voltage vectors in total (6 effective voltage
vectors, 2 zero-voltage vectors, and 30 virtual voltage vectors). The distribution of each
voltage vector is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Distribution of basic and virtual voltage vectors.

As is shown in Figure 1, (1/3)Vb (b = 0, 1, 2, . . . , 7) is the unit to synthetic virtual

voltage vectors, and all voltage vectors are numbered by the value of b (the zero-voltage
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 5 of 16

vector is recorded as 0). For example, if the number of the virtual voltage vector to be
synthesized is (610), then the virtual voltage vector will be synthesized by the basic voltage
vector V6 , V1 , and V0 .
DSVM increases the number of candidate voltage vectors, but too many candidate
voltage vectors make it difficult to select the optimal voltage vector from the 38 candidate
voltage vectors quickly. To solve this problem, this paper proposes a preselection method
based on effective voltage vector. As is shown in Figure 2, all the candidate voltage vectors
are divided into six groups according to the position of every effective voltage vector, and
the members of every groups are listed in Table 1. When the preselection method works,
the effective voltage vectors are used to quickly determine which group the optimal voltage
vector is in, and then the optimal voltage vector will be selected from the group. Though
this method, the number of candidate voltage vectors when select the optimal voltage
vector can be reduced from 38 to 13, which greatly release the computational burden.

Figure 2. Preselection groups of candidate voltage vectors.

Table 1. The members of preselection groups.

Effective Voltage Vector Group Number Group Member

V1 I v100 , v610 , v120 , v110 , v611 , v112
V2 II v200 , v120 , v230 , v220 , v122 , v223
V3 III v300 , v230 , v340 , v330 , v233 , v334
V4 IV v400 , v340 , v450 , v440 , v344 , v445
V5 V v500 , v450 , v560 , v550 , v455 , v556
V6 VI v600 , v560 , v610 , v660 , v566 , v661

2.4. Parameter Identification Using RLS

The PMSM discrete current equation in the d–q axis can also be expressed as Equation (8):

Y = ΘX (8)

where

X = [ i d ( k − 1), i q ( k − 1), u d ( k − 1), u q ( k − 1), 1]T

 T
Y = i d ( k ), i q ( k )
 
a a12 b11 0 0
Θ = [A, B, C] = 11
a21 a22 0 b22 cp
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 6 of 16

In order to identify the parameter matrix Θ online, a recursive least square (RLS)
method is used [2], which can be expressed as

Θ̂(k) = Θ̂(k − 1) + (Y − Θ̂(k − 1)X)XT P(k) (9)

−1
n o
P(k ) = (1/ζ ) P(k − 1) − P(k − 1)X(ζ + XT P(k − 1)X) XT P(k − 1) (10)

where ζ is the forgetting factor, and it represents the weight of the past data in the identifi-
cation. P(k ) represents the covariance matrix at moment k.

3. The Implementation of RLS-DSVM-MPC

The control structure of RLS-DSVM-MPC is shown in Figure 3, where id = 0. The
control structure includes modules, such as feedback measurement, coordinate transforma-
tion, PID regulation, RLS parameter identification, current prediction along with optimal
voltage vector selection.

Figure 3. The control structure of RLS-DSVM-MPC.

The workflow includes the following five steps.

Step 1: When PMSM works in steady state, then the parameter matrix Θ̂ can be
derived from Equations (9) and (10) with id (k − 1), iq (k − 1), ud (k − 1), and uq (k − 1). This
step is realized in RLS parameter identification module.
Step 2: id (k + 1) and iq (k + 1) can be predicted with id (k ), iq (k), ud (k), uq (k), and Θ̂.
Step 3: id (k + 2) and iq (k + 2) can be predicted with id (k + 1), iq (k + 1), and candidate
voltage vectors. Additionally, the candidate voltage vectors were synthesized in DSVM. For
every candidate voltage vector, we can obtain a set of id (k + 2) and iq (k + 2), respectively.
Steps 2 and 3 are achieved in current prediction module.
Step 4: Though Equation (3), the cost function J (Vn ) can be computed with id (k + 2),
re f re f
iq (k + 2), id , and iq .
Step 5: The optimal voltage vector Vopt can be derived from Equation (4). Then, the
switching state of Vopt was applied on the three-phase inverter. Steps 4 and 5 are achieved
in optimal voltage vector selection module.

3.1. The Implementation of DSVM-MPCC Module

The procedure to select the optimal voltage vector is shown in Figure 4. In the first
step, the effective voltage vectors are used to quickly determine which group the optimal
voltage vector is in. Additionally, in step 2, the optimal voltage vector will be selected from
the group. Though this method, the number of candidate voltage vectors when select the
optimal voltage vector can be reduced from 38 to 13.
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 7 of 16

Figure 4. The procedure to select the optimal voltage vector.

3.2. The Realization of RLS Parameter Identification

RLS parameter identification module is achieved by the function which is shown in
Figure 5. In step 1, the variables are defined in the identification function; additionally, in
step 2, the variables are initialized to the certain value; step 3, the parameter matrix can be
derived from Equations (8)–(10); then, in step 4, the motor parameters can be calculated
by the parameter matrix in step 3, referring to matrix A, B, and C; Step 5, the variables are
reinitialized by the formal value, and the function is ready to run for the next time.
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 8 of 16

Figure 5. The function to realize RLS parameter identification.

3.3. The Update Conditions of RLS Parameter Identification

In this paper, the difference between actual and normal velocity is used to determine
whether the PMSM has reached a steady state:

|ωere f −ωe |

1
 , × 100% ≤ υ
|ωere f |

En = (11)
| ω − ωe |
, ere f

0
 × 100% > υ
|ωere f |

where En = 1 means PMSM works in steady state, En = 0 means PMSM works in dynamic
state; ωere f represents the normal velocity; ωe represents the velocity; υ represents the
threshold to determine the state of PMSM.
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 9 of 16

When En = 1, the RLS parameter identification module can update itself using the
newly identified parameters. When En = 0, the velocity and load of PMSM change all the
time, the module will not update.

3.4. The Time Sequence of RLS Parameter Identification and MPC

The time sequence of RLS parameter identification and current prediction is shown in
Figure 6. First, the parameter matrix Θ̂ was derived with id (k − 1), iq (k − 1), ud (k − 1), and
uq (k − 1). Second, id (k + 1) and iq (k + 1) were predicted with id (k), iq (k), ud (k ), uq (k), and
Θ̂. Third, id (k + 2) and iq (k + 2) were predicted with id (k + 1), iq (k + 1), and candidate
voltage vectors.

Figure 6. Time sequence of RLS parameter identification and MPC.

4. Results and Analysis of Simulation

According to the control structure of RLS-DSVM-MPC, the simulation model was built
with Matlab/Simulink, and it is shown in Figure 7. The parameters of PMSM are shown
in Table 2. The PID parameters are given in Table 3. The sample time Ts = 5 × 10−6 s, the
weighting coefficient λ = 1, the RLS forgetting factor ζ = 0.9265, the threshold υ = 0.02,
and the switching frequency of inverter was set to 20 kHz.

Figure 7. The simulation model of RLS-DSVM-MPC.

Table 2. PMSM parameters in the simulation.

Parameters Value Parameters Value

Number of pole pairs 4 Rated load 0.2 N·m
Voltage of the bus 24 V Stator resistance 1.02 Ω
Rated current 4A Stator inductance 0.59 mH
Rated power 62 W Moment of inertia 28 g·cm2
Rated speed 3000 rpm Back EMF Coefficient 4.3 V/krpm
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 10 of 16

Table 3. PID parameters in the simulation.

Parameters P I D
Value 0.2 1.5 0.0001

To evaluate the accuracy of the identified parameters, the average parameter error Paer
and the maximum parameter error Pmer were proposed and defined as Equations (12) and (13):

1 N
NPre f i∑
Paer = ( Pre f − P̂i ) × 100% (12)
=1

∧
max|P re f − P
Pmer = × 100% (13)
Pre f
where P represents Rs , Ld , Lq and ψ pm ; Pre f represents the normal value of the parameters;
and P̂ represents the estimated value of the parameter.

4.1. Static Accuracy of RLS-DSVM-MPC

Figures 8 and 9 show results of parameter identification in the PMSM. Figure 8 shows
results while the velocity n = 1000 rpm and the load TL = 0.1 N · m. Figure 9 shows results
while n = 2000 rpm and TL = 0.2 N · m.

Figure 8. Parameter identification results at 1000 rpm and 0.1 N·m.

Figure 9. Parameter identification results at 2000 rpm and 0.2 N·m.

Comparing Figures 8 and 9, we see that the identified parameters almost equal to the
normal value, and all the Paer and Pmer are less than 0.5%; but with the growth of velocity
and load, the identification accuracy of Rs and ψ pm change more than that of Ld and Lq .
In order to study the static accuracy at different velocities and loads, Paer and Pmer at
different velocities and loads were simulated, respectively. Figure 10 shows results when
TL = 0.1 N · m and n changed from 100 rpm to 3000 rpm by step 100 rpm, and Figure 11
shows results when n = 2000 rpm and TL changed from 0.01 N · m to 0.2 N · m by step
0.01 N · m.
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 11 of 16

Figure 10. Identification accuracy at different velocities.

Figure 11. Identification accuracy at different loads.

It can be seen from Figure 10 that the Paer of Rs (Rsaer ) increases with speed, Ldaer , Ldaer ,
and ψaer are little influenced by speed; the value of Rsmer and ψmer are larger at low speed
than at high speed, that means the parameter accuracy at high speed is higher than that
at low speed. It can be seen from Figure 11 that the accuracy of parameters changes little
as load increases. Comparing Figures 10 and 11, we see that the identification accuracy of
parameters are little affected by the load, and are greatly affected by the velocity.

4.2. Dynamic Accuracy of RLS-DSVM-MPC

Figures 12–14 show results of parameter identification in the PMSM. Figure 12 shows
results when n = 2000 rpm and TL changed from 0.1 N · m to 0.2 N · m. Figure 13 shows
results when TL = 0.1 N · m and n changed from 1000 rpm to 2000 rpm. Figure 14 shows
results when TL changed from 0.1 N · m to 0.2 N · m and n changed from 1000 rpm to
2000 rpm.

Figure 12. Parameter identification results when changes load.

Energies 2022, 15, 4041 12 of 16

Figure 13. Parameter identification results when changes velocity.

Figure 14. Parameter identification results when changes both load and velocity.

It can be seen from Figure 12 that the parameters are little affected by the changing
load. Additionally, from Figure 13 we know that all the parameters are greatly influenced
by the change of velocity. Comparing Figures 12–14, we see that the identification of
parameters are little affected by the load, and are greatly affected by the velocity. When
velocity changes, the identified parameters have poor accuracy.

4.3. Performance Analysis of DSVM-MPC and RLS-DSVM-MPC

The ripple of current is represented by THD (Total Harmonic Distortion), which can
be expressed as
q
I I22 + I32 + . . . + In2
THD(%) = hmn × 100% = × 100% (14)
I f dm I12

where:
Ihmn —the harmonic component,
I f dm —the fundamental component,
In —the nth harmonic.
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 13 of 16

The torque ripple is indicated by Tri , which can be expressed as

| Tmax − Tref | + | Tmin − Tref |

Tri = × 100% (15)
2Tref

where:
Tmax —the maximum value of the torque,
Tmin —the minimum value of the torque,
Tref —the value of the normal torque.
To study the influence of different parameters on performance, every parameter was
tested with DSVM-MPC, respectively. The tested parameter’s value was set k times the
normal value, and the coefficient k changed from 0.1 to 3 by step 0.1. Figure 15 shows the
results of the study.

Figure 15. Performance of DSVM-MPC when parameters were set k times the actual value.

It can be seen from Figure 15 that Lq and ψ pm have greater impact on the performance
than Rs and Ld , and DSVM-MPC can obtain the optimal performance only through the
accurate parameters.
Figure 16 shows the performance of DSVM-MPC and RLS-DSVM-MPC. The parame-
ters were all set two-times the normal value, while n = 1000 rpm and TL = 0.1 N · m. In
addition, the normal parameters was set as a control group.

Figure 16. Performance of DSVM-MPC and RLS-DSVM-MPC.

It can be seen from Figure 16 that the performance of RLS-DSVM-MPC is significantly

better than DSVM-MPC, and is similar to the normal parameter.
Figures 17 and 18 show the performance of DSVM-MPC and RLS-DSVM-MPC under
more conditions. Figure 17 shows results when n = 2000 rpm and TL was set from
0.01 N · m to 0.2 N · m by step 0.01 N · m. Figure 18 shows results when TL = 0.1 N · m and
n was set from 100 rpm to 3000 rpm by step 100 rpm.
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 14 of 16

Figure 17. Performance of DSVM-MPC and RLS-DSVM-MPC at different loads.

Figure 18. Performance of DSVM-MPC and RLS-DSVM-MPC at different velocities.

Comparing Figures 16–18, we see that the performance of RLS-DSVM-MPC is able to

follow that of the normal parameters under almost every conditions. In other words, there
are very little difference between the estimated PMSM parameters and the real parameters,
and the proposed RLS-DSVM-MPC can meet the requirement of predict parameters in
high accuracy.

5. Conclusions
This paper extended the research on DSVM-MPC. The main contributions of this
paper can be concluded as following three aspects.
(1) RLS parameter identification was proposed to predict the PMSM parameters. Through
the proposed method, the PMSM parameters can be identified accurately. and com-
pared with the traditional DSVM-MPC, the proposed RLS-DSVM-MPC has a much
better control performance.
(2) A preselection method for candidate voltage vectors in DSVM were introduced, it can
reduce the number of candidate voltage vectors from 38 to 13, and greatly release the
computational burden of DSVM-MPC.
(3) Through the results of simulation, we found that the accuracy of identified parameters
are mainly affected by velocity while rarely affected by load, and the accuracy in high
velocity is better than that in low velocity.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.W.; methodology, J.W., Z.X. and H.Y.; software, J.W. and
H.Y.; validation, J.W. and H.Y.; formal analysis, H.Y. and Z.X.; investigation, H.Y. and Z.X.; resources,
J.W.; data curation, H.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W. and H.Y.; writing—review and
editing, H.Y. and J.W.; visualization, H.Y.; supervision, J.W.; project administration, J.W.; funding
acquisition, J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 15 of 16

Funding: The work is funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61873079
and Key Research and Development Plan of Zhejiang Province of China under Grant 2021C03034.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, H.; Leng, J. Summary on development of permanent magnet synchronous motor. In Proceedings of the Chinese Control
and Decision Conference (CCDC), Shenyang, China, 9–11 June 2018; pp. 689–693.
2. Ichikawa, S.; Tomita, M.; Doki, S.; Okuma, S. Sensorless control of permanent-magnet synchronous motors using online parameter
identification based on system identification theory. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2006, 53, 363–372. [CrossRef]
3. Casadei, D.; Profumo, F.; Serra, G.; Tani, A. FOC and DTC: Two viable schemes for induction motors torque control. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 2002, 17, 779–787. [CrossRef]
4. Singh, G.K.; Nam, K.; Lim, S.K. A simple indirect field-oriented control scheme for multiphase induction machine. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2005, 52, 1177–1184. [CrossRef]
5. Bao, G.; Qi, W.; He, T. Direct Torque Control of PMSM with Modified Finite Set Model Predictive Control. Energies 2020, 13, 234.
[CrossRef]
6. Buja, G.S.; Kazmierkowski, M.P. Direct torque control of PWM inverter-fed AC motors-a survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2004,
51, 744–757. [CrossRef]
7. Zhu, Z.Q.; Liang, D.; Liu, K. Online parameter estimation for permanent magnet synchronous machines: An overview. IEEE
Access 2021, 9, 59059–59084. [CrossRef]
8. Vazquez, S.; Rodriguez, J.; Rivera, M.; Franquelo, L.G.; Norambuena, M. Model predictive control for power converters and
drives: Advances and trends. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 64, 935–947. [CrossRef]
9. Leon, J.I.; Kouro, S.; Franquelo, L.G.; Rodriguez, J.; Wu, B. The essential role and the continuous evolution of modulation
techniques for voltage-source inverters in the past, present, and future power electronics. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63,
2688–2701. [CrossRef]
10. Judewicz, M.G.; González, S.A.; Echeverría, N.I.; Fischer, J.R.; Carrica, D.O. Generalized predictive current control (GPCC) for
grid-tie three-phase inverters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 63, 4475–4484. [CrossRef]
11. Almér, S.; Mariethoz, S.; Morari, M. Sampled data model predictive control of a voltage source inverter for reduced harmonic
distortion. IEEE T. Contr. Syst. T. 2012, 21, 1907–1915. [CrossRef]
12. Geyer, T.; Quevedo, D.E. Multistep finite control set model predictive control for power electronics. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
2014, 29, 6836–6846. [CrossRef]
13. Vazquez, S.; Marquez, A.; Aguilera, R.; Quevedo, D.; Leon, J.I.; Franquelo, L.G. Predictive optimal switching sequence direct
power control for grid-connected power converters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2014, 62, 2010–2020. [CrossRef]
14. Kouro, S.; Cortés, P.; Vargas, R.; Ammann, U.; Rodríguez, J. Model predictive control—A simple and powerful method to control
power converters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2008, 56, 1826–1838. [CrossRef]
15. Geyer, T.; Beccuti, G.A.; Papafotiou, G.; Morari, M. Model predictive direct torque control of permanent magnet synchronous
motors. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, USA, 12–16 September 2010;
pp. 199–206.
16. Rodríguez, J.; Kennel, R.M.; Espinoza, J.R.; Trincado, M.; Silva, C.A.; Rojas, C.A. High-performance control strategies for electrical
drives: An experimental assessment. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 59, 812–820. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, Y.; Yang, H. Model predictive torque control of induction motor drives with optimal duty cycle control. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron. 2014, 29, 6593–6603. [CrossRef]
18. Casadei, D.; Serra, G.; Tani, K. Implementation of a direct control algorithm for induction motors based on discrete space vector
modulation. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2000, 15, 769–777. [CrossRef]
19. Wei, X.; Chen, D.; Zhao, C. Minimization of torque ripple of direct-torque controlled induction machines by improved discrete
space vector modulation. Electr. Pow. Syst. Res. 2004, 72, 103–112. [CrossRef]
20. Vazquez, S.; Aguilera, R.P.; Acuna, P.; Pou, J.; Leon, J.I.; Franquelo, L.G.; Agelidis, V.G. Model predictive control for single-phase
NPC converters based on optimal switching sequences. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 7533–7541. [CrossRef]
21. Zhou, Z.; Xia, C.; Yan, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shi, T. Torque ripple minimization of predictive torque control for PMSM with extended
control set. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 6930–6939. [CrossRef]
22. Hassine, I.M.B.; Naouar, M.W.; Mrabet-Bellaaj, N. Model predictive-sliding mode control for three-phase grid-connected
converters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 64, 1341–1349. [CrossRef]
23. Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Xie, W.; Wang, F.; Dou, M.; Kennel, R.M.; Gerling, D. Deadbeat model-predictive torque control with discrete
space-vector modulation for PMSM drives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 3537–3547. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 4041 16 of 16

24. Moon, H.C.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, K.B. A robust deadbeat finite set model predictive current control based on discrete space vector
modulation for a grid-connected voltage source inverter. IEEE T. Energy Conver. 2018, 33, 1719–1728.
25. Wang, T.; Liu, C.; Lei, G.; Guo, Y.; Zhu, J. Model predictive direct torque control of permanent magnet synchronous motors with
extended set of voltage space vectors. IET Electr. Power App. 2017, 11, 1376–1382. [CrossRef]
26. Amiri, M.; Milimonfared, J.; Khaburi, D.A. Predictive torque control implementation for induction motors based on discrete
space vector modulation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 6881–6889. [CrossRef]
27. Lin, F.J.; Chen, S.Y.; Lin, W.T.; Liu, C.W. An online parameter estimation using current injection with intelligent current-loop
control for ipmsm drives. Energies 2021, 14, 8138. [CrossRef]
28. Rahman, K.M.; Hiti, S. Identification of machine parameters of a synchronous motor. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2005, 41, 557–565.
[CrossRef]
29. Brosch, A.; Hanke, S.; Wallscheid, O.; Böcker, J. Data-driven recursive least squares estimation for model predictive current
control of permanent magnet synchronous motors. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2020, 36, 2179–2190. [CrossRef]