Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Single vs Multi Vector Predictive Control of Five-phase Drives

Manuel R. Arahal, Manuel G. Satué, Kumars Rouzbehi, Juana M. Martínez-Heredia

TL;DR

This work addresses the lack of consensus on FSMPC variants for multiphase drives by proposing a modulation‑analysis framework to compare single‑vector and multi‑vector FSMPC on a five‑phase induction motor. It demonstrates that SV‑FSMPC offers flexible, implicit modulation via ZVV and, with weighting factors or full AVV sets, can achieve competitive performance against MV‑VVV schemes while improving DC‑link efficiency. MV‑VVV can improve xy current regulation but at the cost of higher switching activity and open‑loop xy control in some regimes. The results provide a global assessment across operating regimes and suggest that SV‑FSMPC with WF or full AVVs, facilitated by modern computation, can rival MV approaches in practical settings.

Abstract

The field of Finite State Model Predictive Control for multiphase drives has produced many contributions. Many variants of FSMPC exist, each aiming at some aspect such as complexity of the cost function, switching frequency, etc. Despite past efforts to compare different techniques, the field is still out of consensus regarding the relative merits of each one. This paper presents a new method to compare FSMPC variants. The method is based on analyzing the modulation, implicit or explicit, used by each variant. In the paper the method is used to compare single-vector state-of-the-art FSMPC with a multi-vector variant designed to cancel xy currents and simplify the cost function. The results show the strengths and weaknesses of each technique. Also, it is found that the trade-offs between figures, previously thought to concern just individual regimes, extend to the whole operating space and also can be pinpoint to each FSMPC variant. Finally, it is shown that the flexibility of the single-vector approach and its better DC-link usage makes it, arguably, superior over the multi-vector variant.

Single vs Multi Vector Predictive Control of Five-phase Drives

TL;DR

This work addresses the lack of consensus on FSMPC variants for multiphase drives by proposing a modulation‑analysis framework to compare single‑vector and multi‑vector FSMPC on a five‑phase induction motor. It demonstrates that SV‑FSMPC offers flexible, implicit modulation via ZVV and, with weighting factors or full AVV sets, can achieve competitive performance against MV‑VVV schemes while improving DC‑link efficiency. MV‑VVV can improve xy current regulation but at the cost of higher switching activity and open‑loop xy control in some regimes. The results provide a global assessment across operating regimes and suggest that SV‑FSMPC with WF or full AVVs, facilitated by modern computation, can rival MV approaches in practical settings.

Abstract

The field of Finite State Model Predictive Control for multiphase drives has produced many contributions. Many variants of FSMPC exist, each aiming at some aspect such as complexity of the cost function, switching frequency, etc. Despite past efforts to compare different techniques, the field is still out of consensus regarding the relative merits of each one. This paper presents a new method to compare FSMPC variants. The method is based on analyzing the modulation, implicit or explicit, used by each variant. In the paper the method is used to compare single-vector state-of-the-art FSMPC with a multi-vector variant designed to cancel xy currents and simplify the cost function. The results show the strengths and weaknesses of each technique. Also, it is found that the trade-offs between figures, previously thought to concern just individual regimes, extend to the whole operating space and also can be pinpoint to each FSMPC variant. Finally, it is shown that the flexibility of the single-vector approach and its better DC-link usage makes it, arguably, superior over the multi-vector variant.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 21 sections, 12 equations, 8 figures, 1 table.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Materials and Methods
  3. Laboratory Setup
  4. Drive control
  5. VSI States and Voltages
  6. Predictive Model
  7. Cost function
  8. Set of Allowed VV
  9. Virtual VV
  10. Figures of Merit
  11. Modulation Analysis
  12. Results
  13. SV-FSMPC Using Large Vectors as AVV Set
  14. Observations
  15. Relevance for control
  16. ...and 6 more sections

Figures (8)

  • Figure 1: Diagram of FSMPC for a five phase IM.
  • Figure 2: Voltage vectors for a five-phase VSI.
  • Figure 3: Performance indices.
  • Figure 4: Evolution of stator currents for some FSMPC variants for rated speed and load.
  • Figure 5: Figures of merit of SV-FSMPC with $AVV=\zeta_{L}$. Each curve correspond to a $f_e$ value as indicated by the legend at the top.
  • ...and 3 more figures