This study demonstrates improved torque ripple and harmonic distortion in PMSM drives, highlighting robust control against disturbances.
This paper proposes an enhanced Model Predictive Direct Speed Control (MPDSC) framework for Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM) drives, integrating duty ratio optimization and load torque disturbance compensation to significantly improve both transient and steady-state performance. Traditional finite-control-set MPC strategies, which apply a single voltage vector per sampling interval, often suffer from steady-state ripples, elevated total harmonic distortion (THD), and high computational complexity due to exhaustive switching evaluations. The proposed approach addresses these limitations through a novel dual-stage cost function structure: the first cost function optimizes dynamic response via predictive control of speed error, while the second adaptively minimizes torque ripple and harmonic distortion by adjusting the active–zero voltage vector duty ratio without the need for manual weight tuning. Robustness against time-varying disturbances is further enhanced by integrating a real-time load torque observer into the control loop. The scheme is validated through both MATLAB/Simulink R2020a simulations and real-time experimental testing on a dSPACE 1202 rapid control prototyping platform across small- and large-scale PMSM configurations. Experimental results confirm that the proposed controller achieves a transient speed deviation of just 0.004%, a steady-state ripple of 0.01 rpm, and torque ripple as low as 0.0124 Nm, with THD reduced to approximately 5.5%. The duty ratio-based predictive modulation ensures faster settling time, improved current quality, and greater immunity to load torque disturbances compared to recent duty-ratio MPC implementations. These findings highlight the proposed DR-MPDSC as a computationally efficient and experimentally validated solution for next-generation PMSM drive systems in automotive and industrial domains.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yahia et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: