Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted.

For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

1

AbstractMultiphase electric drives have been recently
proposed for applications where the highest overall system
reliability and a reduction in the total power per phase are
required. Strategies derived from the conventional Field
Oriented Control (FOC) have been traditionally used in high
performance speedcontrol applications of multiphase drives.
The wellknown Direct Torque Control (DTC) technique has
been also applied in the multiphase case, but the achieved
performance with hysteresis control based approach is far from
that obtainable with the threephase drive, although the control
structure is actually more complex. In this paper, a Predictive
Torque Control (PTC) method is introduced as an alternative to
the DTC technique for high performance variablespeed
operation of multiphase drives. Simulation and experimental
results are provided to illustrate the properties of the developed
method.

Index TermsMultiphase Drives, Predictive Control, Variable
Speed Drives.
1

I.INTRODUCTION
INCE the late 1990s multiphase drives have become a
serious alternative to their threephase counterparts in
certain applications due to some intrinsic advantages that they
offer, such as fault tolerance and means for power splitting
into more than three phases [1]. These advantages are
especially interesting for safetycritical and propulsion
applications (moreelectric aircraft [1][2], electrical and
hybrid vehicles [3], allelectric ship propulsion [4]). In a
threephase machine, to maintain the rotating field if one of
the phases is lost, it is necessary to use additional hardware
since there are no two independently controllable currents left.
In contrast to this, multiphase drives can continue to develop
the rotating field when one or more phases are faulted, since
creation of the rotating field requires always two
independently controllable currents, regardless of the phase

1
Manuscript received July 6, 2011, revised February 6, 2012. Accepted for
publication April 11, 2012. This work was supported by the Spanish
Government (reference DPI2009/07955) and Itaipu Binacional/Parque
Tecnolgico Itaipu-Py.
Copyright 2012 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
Color versions of the figures in this paper are available online at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
J.A. Riveros, F. Barrero and S. Toral are with the Electronic Engineering
Department, University of Seville, Avda. de los Descubrimientos s/n, 41092
Spain, (email: jariveros@esi.us.es, fbarrero@esi.us.es, toral@esi.us.es).
E. Levi and M. Jones are with the School of Engineering, Liverpool John
Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF, United Kingdom,
(email: E.Levi@ljmu.ac.uk, m.jones2@ljmu.ac.uk).
M.J. Durn is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Mlaga, 29120 Mlaga, Spain (email: mjduran@uma.es).
number [1]. Hence, in multiphase drives, only software
reconfiguration is required for fault-tolerant operation. It is
thus possible to operate with a smooth rotating field, although
a certain derating is mandatory to maintain the currents within
the motor limits. Next, the low inverter DC link voltage,
provided by batteries in some of the aforementioned
applications, imposes high phase current requirements,
making multiphase drives especially suitable due to the
reduction of the current per phase for the given power.
High performance applications in multiphase drives require
specific control systems normally obtained from conventional
threephase drives control techniques. The most common
control structure is the wellknown Field Oriented Control
(FOC) technique, a cascaded scheme with an inner current
control loop and an outer speed control loop [1], [2]. The inner
control loop typically generates modulating signals for control
of a twolevel multiphase voltage source inverter (MVSI).
The MVSI is controlled using an appropriate carrierbased or
space vector pulse width modulation technique (CPWM and
SVPWM, respectively). While CPWM methods are simpler to
implement, SVPWM technique offers a better insight into
properties of multiphase drives and inverters.
Other control methods, such as Direct Torque Control
(DTC), have also been adapted and applied in the multiphase
drive area. This is an interesting alternative to FOC when fast
torque dynamic performance is required [5]. The DTC,
developed in the mid1980s, is widely used in threephase
drives at present. Its basic principle is to select the appropriate
stator voltage vectors from a table, according to the signs of
the errors between the references of torque and stator flux and
their estimated values. Classic hysteresisbased DTC has been
also applied in multiphase drives, with the idea of exploiting
the good features found in threephase drives, such as low
machine parameter dependence and simple control structure
[6][7]. However, the results obtained with the classic DTC,
which relies on only the set of the largest vectors in the look
up table, are not good in the case of a multiphase machine
with sinusoidal field distribution. This is so since the
hysteresisbased DTC is inherently a system with two inputs
only, so that only two variables (stator flux and torque) are
controlled. While in a threephase drive this corresponds to
the number of degrees of control freedom (two only), in a
multiphase (nphase) drive there are (n1) degrees of
freedom; hence controlling only two yields a poor
performance, which is manifested in large stator current
harmonics of low order.
To improve the DTC performance, some modifications have
been recently suggested. In [8] a variation of the conventional
VariableSpeed FivePhase Induction Motor
Drive Based on Predictive Torque Control
Jose A. Riveros, Federico Barrero, Senior Member, IEEE, Emil Levi, Fellow, IEEE,
Mario J. Durn, Sergio Toral, Senior Member, IEEE, Martin Jones.
S
Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

2
hysteresisbased DTC is presented for a fivephase induction
machine. Two active voltage vectors (rather than the singe
one) are applied during a sampling period, to produce a virtual
voltage vector with the idea of minimizing the harmonic
content in the xy stator current components. The obtained
results show an improvement, although the performance of
this DTC is still not as good as in a conventional threephase
drive. This DTC method is termed further on modified
DTC. A further proposal to improve the performance of the
DTC in the lowspeed region, by making a more complex
control structure, is given in [9] where a demagnetization
lookup table is added after the classical flux and torque lookup
tables. Reported results show that the low order harmonics are
reduced, at the expense of increasing the computational cost of
the control method.
Predictive control is a control theory developed at the end of
the 1970s. This control method has been recently introduced
as a viable alternative in power converters and drives [10].
Developed schemes have demonstrated good performance in
the current and torque control of conventional drives, at the
expense of a high computational cost [11][12]. It is a more
flexible control scheme than DTC [13] and it also provides
faster torque response than the FOC [14]. The interest in
predictive control approach and multiphase drives has grown
during the last few years [15][16], when the development of
modern microelectronics devices has removed the
computational barriers in their implementation. However,
predictive control techniques have been only proved as a
viable alternative to conventional controllers in the current
regulation of the multiphase power converter [15][20].
Predictive Torque Control (PTC), as a variation of the
predictive current control methods, has been recently analyzed
as an alternative to classic DTC at a theoretical level [21]
[22]. Promising simulation results, using PTC in conjunction
with a symmetrical fivephase induction machine with
sinusoidal MMF distribution, have been reported, but no
experimental results were provided.
This paper builds on the work presented in [22]. Details of
the realtime implementation are provided, and, for the first
time, experimental verification of the PTC for a fivephase
induction machine is reported. A further main contribution of
the paper is an evaluation of the performance and advantages
of the PTC, as an alternative in multiphase electrical drives to
DTC, for high performance applications. Modified DTC rather
than the classic DTC (as in [22]) is considered for comparative
purposes. The viability and effectiveness of the PTC strategy
are confirmed using experimental results, which are compared
with those obtained using the modified DTC method. The
paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the five
phase induction motor drive, whose discretized model is the
basis of the predictive controller. The developed PTC method
is then described in Section III, detailing the necessary
particularization for the fivephase induction motor drive.
Simulation and experimental results are provided in Section
IV to analyze the PTC technique behavior in the speed and
torque control of the drive, and the results are further
compared to those obtained with the modified DTC method.
The conclusions are presented in the last section.
II.THE FIVEPHASE INDUCTION MOTOR DRIVE
One of the most frequently considered multiphase machines
is the symmetrical fivephase machine [1][2]. Two different
constructions of the fivephase electrical machine can be
found in the literature. The first one uses distributed windings
that create a nearsinusoidal airgap MMF. This multiphase
drive requires only sinusoidal voltages, so that the low order
harmonics are undesirable in the machines input voltage. The
second one is designed with concentrated stator windings that
generate low order airgap MMF harmonics. In this case,
torque production can be enhanced using stator current low
order harmonic injection. In particular, the third harmonic can
be used in fivephase induction motors. In this work, a five
phase machine with sinusoidal MMF distribution is utilized.
However, the obtained conclusions can be extrapolated to
other multiphase machines (nphase induction machine, with
n>5, n = an odd number).
A scheme of the drive is shown in Fig. 1. The power
converter is a fivephase voltage source inverter with 2
5
=32
possible switching states (30 active and two zero). The vector
[S
a
S
b
S
c
S
d
S
e
]
T
, where S
i
e{0,1}, characterizes each switching
state, where S
i
=0 indicates that the lower power switch is ON
and the upper power switch is OFF, while the opposite holds
true when S
i
=1. Each stator phase voltage v
si
can be then
obtained from the switching state and the DC link voltage V
dc

as follows:
(
(
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(
(
(

=
(
(
(
(
(
(

e
d
c
b
a
dc
se
sd
sc
sb
sa
S
S
S
S
S
V
v
v
v
v
v
4 1 1 1 1
1 4 1 1 1
1 1 4 1 1
1 1 1 4 1
1 1 1 1 4
5
(1)
The fivephase drive can be described in two orthogonal
planes [23], and xy, using the vector decomposition
matrix for a fivephase system (0=2/5):
(
(
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(
(

=
(
(
(
(
(
(

se
sd
sc
sb
sa
sz
sy
sx
s
s
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2
) 3 sin( ) sin( ) 4 sin( ) 2 sin( 0
) 3 cos( ) cos( ) 4 cos( ) 2 cos( 1
) 4 sin( ) 3 sin( ) 2 sin( ) sin( 0
) 4 cos( ) 3 cos( ) 2 cos( ) cos( 1
5
2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
|
o
(2)
The zerosequence component (zaxis component) can be
omitted due to the star connection of the winding with isolated
neutral point [22]. Application of (2) in conjunction with (1)
yields stator phase voltage axis components in the and xy
planes, as shown in Fig. 2, where each voltage space vector is
identified by an integer equivalent to the digital number [S
a
S
b

S
c
S
d
S
e
]. The fundamental supply component plus supply
harmonics of the order 10n1 (n=0,1,2,3,) map into the
plane. The supply harmonics of the order 10n3
(n=0,1,2,3,) map in the xy plane, while the zero sequence
harmonic components (5n, with n=1,2,3,) are of no interest
here due to the isolated neutral point.

Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.

Fig
Fig
ph

co
as
U
in
tra
in
ut
U
st
st
in

d
dx
y
x
u
y

A
g. 1. Schematic d
g. 2. Voltage spa
hase inverter.
The model
ontinuous ti
ssumptions ap
Upon applicatio
n conjunction
ansformation,
n essence the
tilized to form
Using stator c
tatespace va
ationary refer
n statespace f
u B x A
dt
dx
+ =
x C =
|
s s
i i
| o
=
|
s s
v v v
| o
=
|
s s
i i
| o
=

=
M
r
M
A
A
A
t
0
/
0
0
0
11
diagram of the sym
ace vectors in the
of the five
i me is deriv
pplied in the
on of the dec
n with the ph
, which leaves
same as for
m the model
current and
ariables, the
rence frame w
form:

r sy sx
i i
o

|
T
sy sx
v v
|
T
s s | o

r
M
ls
A
t
t
0 /
0 0
0 0
/ 1 0
0
0 0
11
mmetrical fivep
e and xy pla
ephase indu
ved using t
threephase
oupling trans
hasevariabl
s xy compone
r a threepha
in the comm
rotor flux a
model can b
with the follow
|
T
r| o

r
ls
A
A
e
t
t
0
/ 1 0
0 / 1
0 0
0
0
1
15
AL
phase drive.
anes for a twole
uction mach
he same sta
systems (e.g.
formation ma
e model, rot
ents invariant
ase machine,
mon reference
axis compone
be expressed
wing set of eq
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

r
r r
A
A
t
e t
/ 1
0
0
15 6
16
LL_11-1133-T

evel five
hine in
andard
, [24]).
atrix (2)
tational
t (and is
[2]) is
frame.
ents as
in the
quations
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
= B
C

an
ele
ind
ind
ma
ls
t
an

m
J
e
T

wh
an
spe
pa
inc
eq
reg
pro
spe
the
the
be
mo
Th
av
spe
va
p
s

sta
acc
fun
*
e
T
ba
TIE

=
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
s
L
o
o

=
s
s
L
L
0
0
1 0
0 1
o
o
Here v
s
deno
nd
r
the stat
ectric speed,
ductance, L
s
ductance, R
r
t
achine, = o
s ls s
R L / = , A
nd ( ( A o = / 1
11
The electroma
e
m
m
T
dt
de
=
(
2
5
o

s
i p =
here J
m
and B
nd T
L
the electr
eed and p the
II
The proposed
art), where a
cluded (lower
qual to the no
gion. The con
ovide the torq
eed
*
m
e , and
e control actio
e model of t
havior of the
odel will be r
he predictive
ailable stator
eed (
m
) and
alues of the ele
| | 1 + k
pred
s
, re
ator voltage
cording to the
nction.
The distance b
*
e
) values and
asic cost functi

0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0
0 0 0
ls
s
L
L
L o
s
r
L M
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
otes the stator
or and rotor
M the mu
the stator in
the rotor resis
(
s
L L M = / 1
2
( ) A
r
= o e 1
16
) ( ) (
s
o o t o + / 1
agnetic torque
m m L
B T e
)
o | |

s s s
i i
B
m
are the ine
rical and load
number of po
I.PTCBASED
d control sch
pseudo code
r part). The sta
ominal value
ntrol system i
que reference
d the predictiv
ons (PTC blo
the system f
e controlled
referred to fur
model is it
voltage vecto
stator phase c
ectrical torque
espectively. T
vector that
e optimization
between the re
d the predicte
ion in the form
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

(
0
0
0
0
0
ls
L

(
(
(
(

(
r
L M
0
0
0

r voltage, i
s
th
flux, respect
utual inducta
nductance, L
ls
stance, R
s
stat
)
r
L ,
r r
L = t
) ( ) M o / , A
15
))
r
t o .
e and rotor mo
ertia and frict
d torques,
m
t
ole pairs (
r
=p
D CONTROL SY
heme is show
of the contro
ator flux refer
for operation
includes a PI
to reach a re
ve controller
ock in Fig. 3).
for the predic
variables is t
rther on as th
teratively com
or with the m
currents (i
si
), to
e and stator flu
This informat
must be app
n criterion est
eference flux
ed ones can b
m:
he stator curr
tively,
r
the
ance, L
r
the
s
the stator l
tor resistance
r r
R / ,
s
= t
( ) ( M o o = / 1
5
otion are given
tion coefficie
the rotor mech
p
m
).
YSTEM
wn in Fig. 3
ol algorithm
rence is consta
n in the base
speed contro
eference mech
is applied to
. A discretiza
ction of the
then required
he predictive
mputed using
measured mech
o estimate the
ux, | + k T
pred
e
tion determin
plied to the
tablished by th
(
*
s
) and to
be used to fo
3
(9)
(10)
rent,
s

e rotor
rotor
eakage
of the
s s
R L / ,
)
r
M t ,
n as:
(11)
(12)
ents, T
e

hanical
(upper
is also
ant and
speed
oller to
hanical
decide
ation of
future
d. This
model.
g each
hanical
e future
| 1 + and
nes the
drive,
he cost
orque (
rm the
Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

4

Fig. 3. Speed control using the PTC principle: illustration of the control
scheme in the upper part and the pseudo code of the control algorithm in the
lower part.
| | ( )
| |
2
2
*
2
2
* 1
1
sn
pred
s s
n
pred
e e
k
T
k T T
J

|
.
|

\
|
+
+
+
=
(13)
where T
n
and
sn
are two gain factors corresponding to the
rated torque and flux values during the operation in the base
speed region. The table of available stator voltage vectors
includes 31 different vectors in the fivephase drive, so the
predictive model must be evaluated 31 times to find the vector
that minimizes J. This voltage vector (switching state) is
finally applied to the drive during the next sampling period.
It should be noted that the electrical torque and stator flux
errors have the same weight in the cost function (13), since
both error terms are normalized with respect to the rated
values and are therefore in per unit system (and no weighting
factors are used). Selected form of the cost function in (13)
also directly corresponds to the principles of DTC, since
torque and flux errors are equally weighted. However,
different cost functions including other control criteria (for
example, switching stress minimization, DC link voltage
balancing, or the stator current harmonic minimization) could
be applied. Indeed, as explained shortly, the basic cost
function of (13) is modified for the actual implementation to
ensure a better performance.
The predictive model to estimate the electrical torque and
the stator flux is obtained by discretizing equations (3)(12),
using the sampling period T
s
, a zeroorder hold, and assuming
constant A, B and C matrices in a sampling period. Then, the
predictive model is:
] [ ] [ ] 1 [ k U k X k X I + u = + (14)
] 1 [ ] 1 [ + = + k X C k Y (15)
where
s
T A
e

= u , and t
t
d B e
Ts
A
}
= I
0
.
Matrix A depends on the instantaneous value of
m
, since
this is a timevarying linear system. However, the mechanical
speed dynamics is slower than the electrical dynamics, so that
constant speed within a sampling period can be assumed. The
rotor speed is therefore modeled as a constant parameter in
every sampling period, and and must be updated in every
sampling interval. In order to make the implementation of the
predictive model simpler, some offline calculations can be
done [25]. The first one splits A into constant and time
dependent parts, according to:
s s c s s c s
T A T A T A T A T A
e e e e
+
= =
e e
) (
(16)
The
s c
T A
e

matrix can be evaluated offline, since all its
components are constant with a constant sampling period.
However, the
s
T A
e

e
matrix must be obtained in every
sampling period. Using the CayleyHamilton theorem [13],
[21], [22] this timedependent matrix can be defined as:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

s r s r
s r s r
T A
T T
T T
CH CH
CH CH
e
s
e e
e e
e
cos sin 0 0 0 0
sin cos 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
15 16
16 15
(17)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) M T CH
s r
= o e o / cos 1 1
15
(18)
( ) ( ) ( ) M T CH
s r
= o e o / sin 1
16
(19)
It should be noted that the matrix can be also evaluated
offline, as ( ) B I e A
s c
T A
c
= I

6
1
or
s
T A
T B e
s c
~

if the
sampling time value is low enough, because the time
dependent terms are cancelled (
s s
T A
T B T B e
s
=

=
).
IV.SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A program in Matlab/Simulink

environment has been

designed for the VSIfed fivephase induction machine, and a
number of simulations have been performed to analyze the
viability of the developed control technique. A small (around
1.4 kW) symmetrical fivephase induction machine with 6
poles has been used. Table I shows the parameters of the
machine, which correspond to those of the real fivephase
induction machine utilized in the experiments. The viability of
the algorithm has been assessed for the modified cost function
of (13), which includes terms aimed at limiting the and x
y stator current components to physically meaningful values.
This is done to reduce the current harmonic distortion in the x
y plane and to establish a limit in the maximum achievable
stator current. The task of current limitation is difficult in
hysteresis based DTC, while it can be easily accomplished in
the PTC by including additional terms in the cost function.
Thus, the applied cost function, based on the one defined in
(13), is of the form:
| | ( )
| |
| | ( )
| | ( )
2
2
2
2
*
2
2
*
1 0
1
1
1
sn
sxy
MAX s
sn
pred
s s
n
pred
e e
i
k i
i k i K
k
T
k T T
J
+
+ > + +
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
+
=
o| o| o|

(20)
Two new terms have been added. The first one penalizes
excessive stator current components, while the second one
minimizes the xy stator current components and is of a
slightly different form, when compared to the one used in
[22]. It is interesting to note that the K

term does not affect

Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

5
the cost function if the stator currents in the plane are
within an established limit (in the study here, i
MAX
= 3 A).
The convenient value of weighting factor K

in (20) has been

determined by simulations as 100,000. Very high value of the
K

factor means that the overcurrent protection

consideration overrides all other terms in the cost function
(20). In essence, no vector that violates the current limit in the
plane will ever be selected. Other terms in cost functions,
as well as other weighting factors, can be used to impose
different control goals [22], [26][27], but this is beyond the
scope of the study.
Figures 4 to 8 summarize simulation results. A startup
transient under noload conditions, with speed reference set to
150 rpm and 850 rpm, is considered and the mechanical speed,
electrical torque, stator flux and stator current responses are
shown. Since the introduced method is regarded as an
alternative to the DTC technique, it is compared with the
modified DTC of [8] (more detailed simulation studies were
presented in [21] and [22], including comparison with FOC and
classic DTC techniques). Speed PI controller uses the same
TABLE I
PARAMETERS AND DATA OF THE MACHINE, AND RATED VALUES USED IN THE
COST FUNCTION IN THE SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT
Parameter Value Parameter Value
Rs () 12.85 p 3
L
s
(mH) 151.65 n
n

990 rpm
Ls (mH) 768.80 Jm (kgm
2
) 0.148
L
r
(mH) 768.80 B
m
(Nms) 0.036

M (mH) 688.92 isn (A) 2.20
r (ms) 179.49 sn (Wb) 0.87
P (kW) 1.4 T
n
(Nm) 8.00

proportional and integral parameters (which are 2 and
15,respectively) in the PTC and DTC methods. These values
were arrived at empirically, by fine tuning of the initial values
obtained using linear design in conjunction with the Matlab
tools and the model of the machine.
Figures 4 and 6 show the speed, torque and stator flux
responses, while Figs. 5 and 7 depict stator current evolution
in the and xy planes. The obtained speed response using
the PTC method is quicker than using the modified DTC
method, while the settling time is practically the same. For
instance, the reference speed of 150 rpm is reached in 0.4 s
using the PTC technique and in 0.5 s using the DTC method,
while 850 rpm is reached in 2.2 s using PTC and in 2.45 s
using DTC. This is so since the reference stator flux is
practically instantaneously obtained at the startup with the
PTC method, while this is not the case with the DTC
technique (where a reference torque must be applied to
produce flux). Electrical torque exhibits lower ripple with the
PTC, compared to the DTC method. Stator currents can be
also limited during the startup process using the PTC
method, while this is not the case with the DTC technique.
Stator currents are limited to 3 A in the plane during the
startup using the PTC method (Figs. 5 and 7, upperleft side
figure), thus ensuring the proper overcurrent protection. To
the contrary, using the DTC technique (Figs. 5 and 7, upper
right figure) the stator currents exceed 4.35 A during the start
up process. It is also evident that stator currents in the
plane are better controlled during the transient state using the
PTC than the DTC method (Figs. 5 and 7, middleleft and
right figures, respectively), although the performance in the x
y plane shows a better behaviour with the DTC technique.
This behaviour is slightly better using the DTC technique in
steady state, but at the expense of a higher average switching
frequency, as it can be deduced from Fig. 8. The applied
sampling frequency in PTC and DTC techniques is 10 kHz,
giving a lower average switching frequency in PTC than in
DTC (Fig. 8). For instance, the average switching frequency in
steady state at 850 rmp is 2.3 kHz using PTC, and 3.5 kHz
with the DTC, as it is shown in Fig. 8. It is important to note
that the hysteresis band in the torque controller of the DTC
was increased in order to obtain similar average switching
frequency with the PTC and the DTC methods, and to
compare both control methods under similar conditions. The
applied torque hysteresis band in the DTC method was
9.375% of the rated torque. Larger values have been found to
generate excessive mechanical vibrations of the shaft. So, the
comparison is actually made under worse conditions for the
introduced PTCbased technique. Stator flux hysteresis band
was set to 1% of the rated stator flux.
The obtained performance using the PTC controller could
be modified by changing the control goals within the cost
function, while the flux and torque hysteresis bands are the
only adjustable control parameters in the DTC controller.
Simulation results show that the proposed controller can be a
viable alternative to the modified DTC technique, although
experimental verification must confirm these preliminary
results.
In order to validate simulation results, an experimental
evaluation has been conducted. The test rig is based on a 30
slots, 2 pairs of poles threephase induction machine, whose

Fig. 4. Simulation results: speed control using the PTC principle (left) and the
DTC technique (right). Speed (upper figures), electrical torque (middle
figures) and stator flux (lower figures) responses. A speed reference variation
from 0 to 150 rpm is considered.
Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

6

Fig. 5. Simulation results: Current evolution in the and xy planes in the
initial state, from 0 to 0.15 s (upper figures), the transient state, from 0.2 to 1 s
(middle figures) and the steady state, from 2.5 to 3 s (lower figures). A speed
reference variation from 0 to 150 rpm is considered.

Fig. 6. Simulation results: speed control using the PTC principle (left) and the
DTC technique (right). Speed (upper figures), electrical torque (middle
figures) and stator flux (lower figures) responses. A speed reference variation
from 0 to 850 rpm is considered.


Fig. 7. Simulation results: Current evolution in the and xy planes in the
initial state, from 0 to 0.15 s (upper figures), the transient state, from 0.2 to 1 s
(middle figures) and the steady state, from 2.5 to 3 s (lower figures). A speed
reference variation from 0 to 850 rpm is considered.


Fig. 8. Simulation results: Obtained average switching frequency using the
PTC and the DTC methods.

Fig. 9. Experimental system, including the power and control modules at the
left side, and the fivephase induction machine at the right side.

stator has been rewound to give a fivephase induction
machine with 3 pairs of poles. Parameters of the machine have
been determined using standstill tests with inverter supply,
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0
1
2
3
4
Speed (p.u.)
S
w
i
t
c
h
i
n
g

F
r
e
q

(
k
H
z
)
DTC
PTC
Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

7
and the obtained values are those shown in Table I. A
schematic of the rig and photos of the complete system are
given in Fig. 9. Five phases of two conventional threephase
VSIs from Semikron (SKS21F) were used to drive the
machine. The DC link voltage was again set to 400V using a
DC power supply system. The control system is based on the
MSK28335 board and the TMS320F28335 DSP, and the
induction machine was operated in the same manner as in the
simulation tests. The rotor mechanical speed
m
is measured
using a GHM510296R/2500 digital encoder and the eQEP
peripheral of the DSP. A delay compensation scheme, as
proposed in [15] and [28], is also used to reduce the delay in
the control action.
Figures 10 to 14 summarize experimental results. A speed
reference change from 0 to 150 and 850 rpm is considered
again and the same variables are studied. Stator flux is
evaluated in the conventional manner, from the stator currents
and the estimated stator voltages, obtained from the switching
states. Motor torque is estimated using stator flux components
and measured stator currents, on the basis of (12). Figures 10
and 11 show the obtained response for the speed, torque, flux
and stator current when the speed reference step from 0 to 150
rpm is applied. Figures 12 and 13 show the same variables for
the speed reference stepping from 0 to 850 rpm.
Comparison with simulation results (Figs. 4 to 7) reveals a
satisfactory agreement, both qualitatively and quantitatively,
despite unavoidable measurement errors and modeling
inaccuracies. To summarize: the obtained speed response
using the PTC method is quicker than using the DTC
technique, the electrical torque is generated with lower ripple
using the PTC than the DTC method, the overcurrent
protection is guaranteed with the PTC technique but not with
the DTC method, and the stator currents in the plane are
better controlled using the PTC than the DTC method. The
performance in the xy plane reflects slightly better behaviour
using the modified DTC technique, but at the expense of the
worse behaviour in the plane, which produces larger
electrical torque ripples. Stator flux is also better controlled
using the PTC technique. Somewhat higher harmonic
distortion is detected using the PTC technique, when
compared to the DTC method, as can be seen in Fig. 14, where
experimentally obtained stator current spectra and THD values
are shown for the two control techniques. This is a
consequence of the lower switching frequency with PTC, as
discussed shortly.
Figure 15 shows experimental results of a step loading
transient at 850 rpm to compare disturbance rejection
properties of the PTC and the modified DTC. The load (50% of
the nominal torque) is suddenly applied using a DC machine.
The upper plots show the speed response, while the lower plots
depict stator phase a current waveforms for the PTC and the


Fig. 10. Experimental results: speed control using the PTC principle (left) and
the DTC technique (right). Speed (upper figures), electrical torque (middle
figures) and stator flux (lower figures) responses. A speed reference step from
0 to 150 rpm is applied.


Fig. 11. Experimental results: Current evolution in the and xy planes in
the initial state, from 0 to 0.15 s (upper figures), the transient state, from 0.2 to
1 s (middle figures) and the steady state, from 2.5 to 3 s (lower figures). A
speed reference step from 0 to 150 rpm is applied.
Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

8

Fig. 12. Experimental results: speed control using the PTC principle (left) and
the DTC technique (right). Speed (upper figures), electrical torque (middle
figures) and stator flux (lower figures) responses. Speed reference is stepped
from 0 to 850 rpm.


Fig. 13. Experimental results: Current evolution in the and xy planes in
the initial state, from 0 to 0.15 s (upper figures), the transient state, from 0.2 to
1 s (middle figures) and the steady state, from 2.5 to 3 s (lower figures). Speed
reference is stepped from 0 to 850 rpm.

modified DTC techniques. Current waveforms are rather
similar, but disturbance rejection is better using the PTC
technique, so that the reference speed is re-established faster.
It should be noted that prior to the load stepping the operating
condition is not the no-load condition, since the induction
machine is mechanically coupled to the DC machine.
The applied sampling frequency in both PTC and DTC
techniques is 10 kHz, the same as in the simulation results. It
is interesting to note that the average switching frequency is
at, for instance, 850 rpm in steady state 2.2 kHz using the PTC
and 3.3 kHz using the DTC. This result, which corresponds to
simulations (Fig. 8), favors the PTC technique that produces
similar overall behavior as the modified DTC method, but at a
lower average switching frequency, thus reducing switching
losses and semiconductor stress. Admittedly however,
parameter variation effects (which are beyond the scope of this
study) are likely to affect PTC more than DTC. This is so
since DTC asks, in principle, for stator resistance only, while
PTC requires all motor parameters.
To examine the operation around zero speed, rated speed
reversal has been examined experimentally. Figure 16 depicts
the results obtained using the PTC and DTC techniques, for
the speed reference change from 1000 rpm to 1000 rpm. It
can be seen that PTC offers better control than DTC around
the zerocrossing point, as evidenced by a zoomin of the
stator currents in the plane in the lower plots in Fig. 16.
Finally, Fig. 17 shows real time implementation details of
the PTC technique and includes a comparison with the DTC
method. PTC and DTC impose the same microprocessor
requirements (timing, eQEP, PWM interrupts, and similar).
However, from the computational point of view, PTC needs
about 50 s while DTC consumes only about 20 s of the
sampling period. This is a clear disadvantage of the proposed
method against DTC technique, especially in low power drives
where switching frequencies can be high (up to 20 kHz).
However, multiphase drives are usually associated with high
power systems where switching frequencies tend to be rather
low, so that the required 50 s presents no difficulties in
practical realizations.

Fig. 14. Experimental results: stator current harmonic distortion in steady state
at 150 rpm (upper plots) and 850 rpm (lower plots) using the PTC (left hand
side) and DTC (right hand side) techniques.


Fig. 15. Experimental results: disturbance rejection transient. A load torque
(50% of the nominal torque) is applied at 850 rpm. Speed response waveforms
are shown in the upper figures, while the aphase stator current waveforms
are depicted in the lower plots, using the PTC (left) and DTC (right)
techniques.
Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

9

Fig. 16. Experimental results: reversal from 1000 rpm (nominal speed) to -
1000 rpm using the PTC (left hand side) and DTC (right hand side)
techniques. Speed response waveforms are shown in the upper figures,
estimated torque in the middle plots, and the stator current waveforms in the
plane are depicted in the lower recordings (which represent a zoomin
around the point of zerocrossing of the speed).


Fig. 17. Real time implementation details in a sampling period: comparison
between PTC and DTC methods.

From the presented results and previous analysis it can be
concluded that the proposed PTC based control technique can
be considered as a viable alternative to the modified DTC
technique for multiphase induction motor drives. It should be
noted that the comparison between PTC and DTC was made
in worse average switching frequency conditions for the
proposed PTC technique. However, as shown by reported
results, even with a lower average switching frequency PTC
results are better than DTC results.
Another point to note is that the optimum selection of the
zero redundant state has not been considered here and that
00000 state was used whenever zero space vector was required
by PTC (which is however a rather rare occurrence). Whether
or not this state is optimal depends on the previously applied
space vector, since it may require more legs to switch than it
would have been required by 11111 state. Since two different
zero voltage vectors can be applied in PTC, optimization of
the applied state to minimize the number of legs requiring
switching can have a positive impact on the stress of the
power switches and on the average switching frequency, so
that a slightly lower average switching frequencies could be
obtained with the PTC.
V.CONCLUSION
In this paper, a method for the speed control of a multiphase
drive, based on predictive control technique, is introduced.
The method avoids the use of complex multiphase modulation
techniques, providing a flexible torque and flux control on the
basis of the cost function and the discrete model of the drive.
The control technique is analyzed using a Matlab/Simulink
environment and is also experimentally compared to a
modified DTC control method recently proposed for five
phase drives. Both techniques provide fast torque dynamic
performance, but on the basis of the obtained results it is
possible to conclude that PTC has better performance, while
operating at a lower average switching frequency. The
obtained speed response is quicker, the electrical torque is
produced with lower ripple, and the overcurrent protection is
guaranteed. Although the performance in the xy plane reflects
a slightly better behaviour using the modified DTC technique,
the stator currents in the plane are better controlled using
the PTC method, thus guaranteeing an improvement in the
torque controllability.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Levi, Multiphase Electric Machine for Variable Speed
Applications, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no.
5, pp. 18931909, 2008.
[2] E. Levi, R. Bojoi, F. Profumo, H.A. Toliyat, S. Williamson, Multiphase
induction motor drivesA technology status review, IET Electric Power
Applications, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 489516, 2007.
[3] L. Parsa, H.A. Toliyat, Faulttolerant interiorpermanentmagnet
machines for hybrid electric vehicle applications, IEEE Transactions
on Vehicular Technology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 15461552, 2007.
[4] P.T. Norton, P.E. Thompson, The naval electric ship of today and
tomorrow, 3
rd
Proc. all Electric Ship Symp., pp. 8086, 2000.
[5] M. Depenbrock, Direct Self-control (DSC) of Inverterfed Induction
Machine, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp.
420429, 1988.
[6] H.A. Toliyat, H. Xu, L.J. Peterson, DSPBased Direct Torque Control
(DTC) for FivePhase Induction Machines, IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, vol. 121D, no. 12, pp. 12561262, 2001.
[7] R. Bojoi, F. Farina, G. Griva, F. Profumo, A. Tenconi, Direct Torque
Control for Dual ThreePhase Induction Motor Drives, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 16271636,
2005.
[8] L. Zheng, J.E. Fletcher, B.W. Williams, X. He, A Novel Direct Torque
Control Scheme for a Sensorless FivePhase Induction Motor Drive,
IEEE Transaction on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 503513,
2011.
[9] L. Gao, J.E. Fletcher, L. Zheng, Low Speed Control Improvements for
a 2level 5phase InverterFed Induction Machine Using Classic Direct
Torque Control, IEEE Transaction on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58,
no. 7, pp. 27442754, 2011.
[10] P. Corts, M. Kazmierkowski, R. Kennel, D. Quevedo, J. Rodrguez,
Predictive Control in Power Electronics and Drives, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 43124324,
2008.
[11] T. Geyer, G. Papafotiou, M. Morari, Model Predictive Direct Torque
ControlPart I: Concept, Algorithm, and Analysis, IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 18941905, 2009.
[12] G. Papafotiou, J. Kley, K.G. Papadopoulos, P. Bohren, M. Morari,
Model Predictive Direct Torque ControlPart II: Implementation and
Experimental Evaluation, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 19061915, 2009.
[13] H. Miranda, P. Corts, J. Yus, J. Rodrguez, Predictive Torque Control
of Induction Machine Base on StateSpace Model, IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 19161924, 2009.
[14] J. Rodriguez, R. M. Kennel, J. R. Espinoza, M. Trincado, C. A. Silva, C.
A. Rojas, High Performance Control Strategies for Electrical Drives:
Copyright (c) 2011 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
ALL_11-1133-TIE

10
An Experimental Assessment, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 812820, 2012.
[15] M.R. Arahal, F. Barrero, S. Toral, M.J. Durn, R. Gregor, Multiphase
current control using finitestate modelpredictive control, Control
Engineering Practice, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 579587, 2009.
[16] F. Barrero, M.R. Arahal, R. Gregor, S. Toral, M.J. Durn, A proof of
concept study of predictive current control for VSI driven asymmetrical
dual threephase AC machines, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 19371954, 2009.
[17] F. Barrero, M.R. Arahal, R. Gregor, S. Toral, M.J. Durn, Onestep
Modulation Predictive Current Control Method for the Asymmetrical
Dualthree phase Induction Machine, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 19741983, 2009.
[18] R. Gregor, F. Barrero, S. Toral, M.J. Durn, M.R. Arahal, J. Prieto, J.L.
Mora, PredictiveSVPWM Current Control Method for Asymmetrical
Dualthree phase Induction Motor Drives, IET Electric Power
Applications, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 2634, 2010.
[19] M.J. Duran, J. Prieto, F. Barrero, S. Toral, Predictive Current Control
of Dual Threephase Drives using Restrained Search Techniques, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 32533263,
2011.
[20] F. Barrero, J. Prieto, E. Levi, R. Gregor, S. Toral, M. Duran, M. Jones,
An Enhanced Predictive Current Control Method for Asymmetrical
Sixphase Motor Drives, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 32423252, 2011.
[21] J.A. Riveros, J. Prieto, F. Barrero, S. Toral, M. Jones, E. Levi,
Multiphase Machines in Propulsion Drives of Electric Vehicles, 14
th

International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference, EPE
PEMC, pp. 201206, 2010.
[22] J. Riveros, B. Bogado, J. Prieto, F. Barrero, S. Toral, M. Jones,
Predictive Torque Control for FivePhase Induction Motor Drives,
36
th
Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society,
IECON, pp. 24672472, 2010.
[23] Y. Zhao, T.A. Lipo, Space vector PWM control of dual threephase
induction machine using vector space decomposition, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 11001109,
1995.
[24] E. Levi, M. Jones, S.N. Vukosavic, H.A. Toliyat, A Novel Concept of a
Multiphase, Multimotor Vector Controlled Drive System Supplied from
a Single Voltage Source Inverter, IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 320335, 2004.
[25] C.A. Silva, J.I. Yuz, On Sampled-data Models for Model Predictive
Control, 36
th
Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society, IECON, pp. 29662971, 2010.
[26] P. Corts, S. Kouro, B. La Rocca, R. Vargas, J. Rodriguez, J.I. Len, S.
Vzquez, L.G. Franquelo, Guidelines for Weighting Factors Design in
Model Predictive Control of Power Converters and Drives, IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Technology, ICIT, 2009.
[27] C.S. Lim, N.A. Rahim, W.P. Hew, M. Jones, E. Levi, Model Predictive
Current Control of a Five-phase Induction Motor, 37
th
Annual
Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON, 2011.
[28] P. Cortes, J. Rodriguez, C. Silva, A. Flores, Delay Compensation in
Model Predictive Current Control of a Three-Phase Inverter, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 13231325,
2012.

Jose A. Riveros received the B.Eng. degree in
Electronic Engineering from the Universidad Nacional
de Asuncin, Paraguay, in 2005, and MSc degree from
University of Seville, Spain, in 2009. In 2008, he joined
the Electronic Engineering Department at University of
Seville, Spain, where he is working toward his PhD
degree. Mr. Riveros is a recipient of Scholarship from
Itaipu Binacional/Parque Tecnolgico ItaipuPy for his
PhD studies.

Federico Barrero (M04SM05) received the MSc and
PhD degrees in Electrical and Electronic Engineering
from the University of Seville, Spain, in 1992 and 1998,
respectively. In 1992, he joined the Electronic
Engineering Department at the University of Seville,
where he is currently an Associate Professor. He received
the Best Paper Award from the IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics for 2009.

Emil Levi (S89, M92, SM99, F09) received his M.Sc.
and PhD degrees from the University of Belgrade,
Yugoslavia in 1986 and 1990, respectively. From 1982
till 1992 he was with the Dept. of Elec. Engineering,
University of Novi Sad. He joined Liverpool John
Moores University, UK in May 1992 and is since
September 2000 Professor of Electric Machines and
Drives. He serves as CoEditorinChief of the IEEE
Trans. on Industrial Electronics, as an Editor of the IEEE
Trans. on Energy Conversion, and as EditorinChief of
the IET Electric Power Applications. Emil is the recipient of the Cyril Veinott
award of the IEEE Power and Energy Society for 2009.

Mario J. Durn received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in
the electrical engineering from the University of Mlaga,
Mlaga in 1999 and 2003, respectively. He is currently
an Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, University of Mlaga.





Sergio Toral (M01SM06) received the M.Sc. and
PhD degrees in Electrical and Electronic Engineering
from the University of Seville, Spain, in 1995 and 1999,
respectively. He is currently an Associate Professor with
the Department of Electronic Engineering, University of
Seville. He received the Best Paper Award from the
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics for 2009.


Martin Jones received his B.Eng. degree (First Class
Honors) from the Liverpool John Moores University,
UK in 2001. He has been a research student at the
Liverpool John Moores University from September
2001 till Spring 2005, when he received his PhD degree.
Mr Jones was a recipient of the IEE Robinson Research
Scholarship for his PhD studies and is currently with
Liverpool John Moores University as a Senior Lecturer.