2010 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications
Part of 2010 IEEE Multi-Conference on Systems and Control
Yokohama, Japan, September 8-10, 2010
Speed Tracking of Linear Induction Motor:
An Analytical Nonlinear Model Predictive Controller
Jean Thomas and Anders Hansson, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Direct Torque Control (DTC) is considered as one
of the latest and most efficient techniques that can be used for
the speed and/or position tracking control problem of induction
motor drives. However, the main drawbacks of classical DTC
are the variable switching frequency that could exceed the
maximum allowable switching frequency of inverters and also
the ripples it has over the current and torque, especially at low
speed tracking. It has been shown that applying Model
Predictive Control (MPC) to a Linear Induction Motor (LIM)
leads to a much better speed tracking performance. MPC
provides the optimal 3-phase primary voltages necessary for
speed tracking using a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM)
inverter. The main inherent drawbacks of the MPC strategy
are its high switching frequency and also its heavy
computational load which makes it inapplicable in real-time.
This paper presents a new analytical approach based on the
MPC strategy. The new analytical approach controls directly
the inverter switches. Hence the PWM inverter is not needed. It
computes the optimal position transitions sequence of the
inverter switches to track the speed reference trajectory. The
proposed analytical nonlinear MPC controller includes an
integral action to reduce the steady state error. The proposed
controller admits real-time implementation. Simulation results
show that the new analytical approach has good tracking
properties at the same time as it reduces the average inverter
switching frequency by 93 % as compared to classical DTC.
I. INTRODUCTION
N OWDAYS, the linear induction motor (LIM) is widely
used in a variety of applications like transportation,
conveyor systems, material handling, pumping of liquid
metal, sliding door closers, robot base movers, office
automation, drop towers, elevators etc. [3], [13]. This is
attributed to several advantages that the LIM posses such as
high starting thrust, alleviation of gears between motor and
the motion devices, simple mechanical construction, no
backlash and small friction, and suitability for both low
speed and high speed applications [12],[2].
The driving principles of the LIM are similar to those of
the traditional rotary induction motor. However, the control
characteristics of the LIM are more complicated. This is
attributed to the change in operating conditions due to
mover speed, temperature, and rail configuration. Moreover,
Manuscript received February 2, 2010.
J. Thomas is now with the Division of Automatic Control, Linköping
University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden (corresponding author phone:
+46-13284027; fax: +46-13282622; e-mail: jthomas@isy.liu.se).
A. Hansson is with the Division of Automatic Control, Department of
Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping,
Sweden (e-mail: hansson@isy.liu.se).
978-1-4244-5363-4/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE 1939
there are uncertainties existing in practical applications of
the LIM which are usually composed of unpredictable plant
parameter variations, external load disturbances, and
unmodeled and nonlinear dynamics. Therefore, the LIM
drive system must provide high tracking performance, and
high dynamic stiffness to overcome the above difficulties
[1], [5], [6].
Modern control techniques have been used to control the
speed and/or position of the induction motor drives. Among
these modern control techniques, the method of Direct
Torque Control (DTC) is considered as one of the latest and
most efficient techniques that can be used for induction
motors [7], [9]. The basic characteristic of DTC is that the
positions of the inverter switches are directly determined.
The advantages of the DTC strategy are fast transient
response, simple configuration, and low parameter
dependence. However, the classical DTC has inherent
drawbacks such as variable switching frequency, high
torque and current ripples, high noise level at low speeds
and also the difficulty to accurately control torque and flux
at low speeds.
Model predictive control has been applied to LIM drives
for tracking the speed reference trajectory [14]. Based on a
linearized model of the LIM, the MPC controller calculates
the optimal primary voltages while respecting the given
constraints over the flux and current in order to keep them
within permissible values. It has been shown that the
response is very fast as compared to classical DTC, and with
almost no ripples over the current and torque signals.
Moreover, it has been shown to be more robust against
parameter uncertainty and load disturbance at high speed as
well as at low speed. The MPC controller is used in
conjunction with a PWM inverter. This often results in a
high switching frequency at the inverter switches. Moreover,
the computational burden of the on-line optimization and
linearization prevents real-time implementation.
A MPC strategy for induction motor based on feasibility
and not on optimality is presented in [15]. The main
objective there is to find a control input that keeps the
controlled variables within their bounds, and select among
the set of feasible control inputs the one that has minimum
switching frequency. The controller imposes an upper bound
on the average switching frequency. The motor with the
inverter are modelled as a hybrid system (MLD form) where
the inverter switch positions are represented by integer
variables {1, -1}. A performance improvement in terms of a
reduction of the switching frequency as compared to d (υ) 1 D 1
= Fe − υ− FL (5)
classical DTC is shown. However it offers a feasible but dt M M M
non-optimal solution. Also reformulating the system in an Lr L2 m
MLD form and computing an explicit solution using a multi- where Tr = , σ = 1− , and where
Rr Ls Lr
parametric approach could be computationally demander
even if it is calculated off-line. The complexity depends on D : viscous friction and iron-loss coefficient,
the number of parameters and the number of the resulting Fe : electromagnetic force,
regions. Only the case of fixed operation point is considered. FL : external force disturbance,
This paper proposes an analytical Nonlinear Model h : pole pitch,
Predictive Control (NMPC) strategy to control directly the Ls : primary inductance per phase
inverter switching positions. We consider the speed Lr : secondary inductance per phase,
reference trajectory tracking control problem of the LIM.
The main control objective is to track the speed reference L m : magnetizing inductance per phase,
while minimizing the average switching frequency of the M : total mass of the moving element,
inverter. Moreover, we aim at developing a new technique n p : number of pole pairs.
that should reduce significantly the computational time. The R s : primary winding resistance per phase,
proposed NMPC has integrator action to reduce the steady Rr : secondary resistance per phase,
state error. The proposed technique is easy and simple to
Tr : secondary time constant,
construct and to implement. Simulation results show the
successes of this technique in offering a good speed tracking υ : mover linear velocity,
performance with a fast response, low current and force λαr , λβr : α − β secondary flux components,
ripples, high robustness against load disturbances and iαs , i β s : α − β primary current components,
parameter variations, low switching frequency and
Vαs , V βs : α − β primary voltage components,
significantly low computational load.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly σ : leakage coefficient,
presents the dynamic model of the linear induction motor. In
The electromagnetic force can be described in the α − β
section 3, an analytical NMPC controller is presented. The
implementation scheme of the LIM drive together with the fixed frame as [10]:
proposed analytical controller is described in section 4. ( )
Fe = k f λαr i βs − λ βr iαs (6)
Simulation results and general remarks are presented in
where k f is the force constant which is equal to:
section 5. Finally, conclusions and future work are given in
section 6. 3n p Lm π
kf = (7)
2 Lr h
I. LINEAR INDUCTION MOTOR
B. DC-AC Inverter
A. Dynamic Model of the LIM
The three phase two-level DC-AC inverter used to drive
The dynamic model of the LIM is modified from the
the LIM is shown in Fig. (1). The three switches positions
traditional model of a three phase, Y-connected induction
can be modelled by three binary variables u1, 2,3 ∈ {1,0}
motor in α − β stationary frame and can be described by the
following differential equations [11]: representing on/off positions, which imply the following
relation:
d (iαs ) ⎛ R 1− σ ⎞ Lm
= −⎜⎜ s + ⎟⎟iαs + λαr + ⎧ Vdc
dt σ
⎝ sL σ Tr ⎠ σ Ls Lr Tr
(1) ⎪⎪1 ⇔ vi = 2
n p Lm π 1 ui = ⎨ i = 1,2,3 (8)
+ υλ βr + Vαs ⎪0 ⇔ v = − Vdc
σLs Lr h σ Ls ⎪⎩ i
2
d (i βs ) ⎛ R 1− σ ⎞ n L π where Vdc is the dc voltage source. The three switches have
= −⎜⎜ s + ⎟⎟i βs − p m υλαr +
dt ⎝ σLs σTr ⎠ σLs Lr h
(2) 8 possible different position combinations. Two of them are
+
Lm
λ βr +
1
V βs not allowed, [1;1;1] and [0;0;0] , because they short-circuit
σLs Lr Tr σLs the motor. Thus only six different combinations are allowed.
d ( λαr ) Lm 1 n pπ The relation between the primary voltage components
= iαs − λαr − υ λβr (3)
dt Tr Tr h Vαs , V βs and the switching positions are given by the
d ( λ βr ) Lm n pπ 1 following equation:
= i βs + υ λαr − λ βr (4)
dt Tr h Tr

1940
 ⎡1 − 1 / 2 − 1 / 2⎤ ⎡ u1 ⎤
⎡Vαs ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
⎢V ⎥ = Vdc
⎢ 3 3 ⎥ ⎢u 2 ⎥
⎣ βs ⎦ ⎢ 0 − ⎥
⎣ 2 2 ⎦ ⎢⎣u3 ⎥⎦
+Vdc/2
u1=1 is
is
LIM
u2=0 is
u3=1
-Vdc/2
Figure 1: Three-phase inverter driving the LIM.
II. ANALYTICAL NMPC CONTROLLER
A. Principal ideas of Model Predictive Control
The main idea of MPC is to use a model of the plant to
predict future outputs of the system. Based on this
prediction, at each sampling period, a sequence of future
control values is computed through an on-line optimization
process, which maximizes the tracking performance while
satisfying constraints. Only the first value of this optimal
sequence is applied to the plant, and the whole procedure is
repeated again at the next sampling period according to what
usually is called a ‘receding’ horizon strategy [4].
B. Analytical Nonlinear MPC Controller
Applying MPC to a LIM grants a better performance than
the classical DTC approach [14], but the main drawbacks of
this technique are the heavy on-line computations that make
it inapplicable in real-time, and also the high switching
frequency that may exceed the maximum allowable
frequency. Because of these drawbacks, the following
analytical NMPC controller is proposed.
As the three switches of the inverter have only six
different position combinations, an analytical computation
of the tracking performance, for the six possible position
combinations can be performed. Then the position of the
switches (which is the manipulated variables) that
maximizes the tracking performance is selected. The six
different combinations of positions are the columns of U :
⎡1 0 0 1 0 1 ⎤
U = ⎢⎢0 1 0 1 1 0⎥⎥
⎢⎣0 0 1 0 1 1⎥⎦
The objective function that captures the tracking
performance includes the error between the actual speed and
the speed reference trajectory. To minimize the inverter
switching frequency a penalty term on the control variations
is included in the objective function. The considered
objective function is:
J = ∑ ( yˆ (k + j k ) − w(k + j ) ) Q( yˆ (k + j k ) − w(k + j )) +
N T
j =1
N u −1
+ ∑ (u (k + j ) − u (k + j − 1) ) Pj (u (k + j ) − u (k + j − 1) )
T
j =0
where ŷ is the predicted future output, w is the reference
(9) for ŷ , u is the control signal, and where Q, Pj are positive
definite weighting matrices. This function is minimized
subject to constraints that describe the discretized dynamics
in (1)-(9).
The Pj matrix should impose more penalties over the
first time-steps than the later steps, to force the transition of
the switches to occur as late as possible. This strategy is
implemented by the following relation:
P0 f P1 f L f PNu −1 . (12)
where Pj f Pj +1 mean that Pj − Pj +1 is positive definite.
To reduce the steady state error, an additional state
xint (k ) representing integration of the control error is
defined as follows:
xint (k + 1) = xint (k ) + kint (w(k ) − y (k ) ) (13)
where y is the measured output, w is the reference for y
and where k int is the integrator gain. To reduce the steady
state error, an additional penalty term including the
integrator state is added to the cost function. Thus the
objective function (11) is redefined as:
∑ (yˆ (k + j k ) − w(k + j ) ) Q(yˆ (k + j k ) − w(k + j ) ) +
N T
J=
j =1
N
+ ∑ xˆint (k + j )T Pint xˆint (k + j ) + (14)
j =1
Nu −1
∑ (u (k + j ) − u (k + j − 1) ) Pj (u (k + j ) − u (k + j − 1) )
T
+
j =0
where xˆint (k ) is the predicted integrator state, and Pint is
positive definite weighting matrix. Assuming that the closed
loop is stable, it would be a contradiction for the control
error not to converge to zero, since this would imply that the
integrator state would not be bounded.
The concept of control horizon ( N u < N ) is used to
reduce the number of decision variables and thus the
computational time. The objective function (14) is evaluated
6 N u times at each time step, and the control signal u (k )
corresponding to the minimum objective function value is
(10) then selected and applied to the inverter switches.
Increasing the prediction horizon ( N ) will lead to more
accurate choice of control signals. However, increasing the
prediction horizon will increase the computational time. To
account for that, we propose to use different discrete time
models with different sampling times. For the first sampling
steps we use the motor model with the given sampling time,
and then for later sampling steps we may use another model
with longer sampling time. This will increase the prediction
interval without increasing the number of prediction steps.
The advantages of this technique besides its simple design
(11)
and implementation are that there is no complicated on-line
optimization to be performed. Furthermore, there is no need
1941
to linearize the LIM model as done in [14]. Moreover there
is no need to reformulate the system in the hybrid system
framework; neither as a PWA model nor as an MLD model
as done in [15]. Of course operating point changes are
allowed and taken into account.
The developed technique still gives the good performance
of classical MPC [14], but in addition to that, it reduces
significantly the computational time. Moreover, one extra
dimension of freedom through the choice of the weighting
matrix Pj has been added, which enables a trade-off
between the average switching frequency and the speed
tracking performance. Note that reducing the torque ripple
can only be achieved by increasing the switching frequency
and vice versa [16].
III. SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
The block diagram of the linear induction motor
controlled with the proposed analytical NMPC controller is
shown in Figure 2. The system consists of the LIM, an
inverter, the analytical NMPC controller, and a flux
estimator. The input signals to the analytical NMPC
controller are the speed reference w , the LIM velocity v ,
the primary currents iαs and i βs , and estimates of the
secondary fluxes λαr and λ βr .
The secondary flux components are estimated using the
voltage and current signals as follows [17],[18]
λαr = ( Lr / Lm ) ( λαs − σ Ls iαs )
(15)
λ βr = ( Lr / Lm ) ( λ βs − σ Ls i βs )
where : λαs = ∫ (Vαs − iαs Rs )dt , λ βs = ∫ (V βs − i βs Rs )dt
w FL
y=⎢ ⎥
Analytical u V
NMPC
Controller
Inverter LIM
λ
Rotor Flux
Estimator
Figure 2. Block diagram of the LIM drive controlled with the proposed
analytical NMPC controller.
A. Control Configuration
Different values for the control horizon and the prediction
horizon, ( N u , N respectively) are considered. The resulting
system response shows that N u = 2 , N = 10 for constant
sampling time Ts , provides a good performance at high and
low speed tracking, and that there is no need to increase the
control horizon. With a shorter control horizon N u = 1 , we
still have a good performance with just a slightly lower
performance at low speed which may require a fine
adjustment for the controller parameters.
After successive iterations, the parameters of the MPC
controller that give a good response are: control horizon
N u = 1 , prediction interval = 10 × Ts . The concept of
multiple discrete models is used to reduce the number of
prediction steps; first a model with sampling time Ts is used
for the first two steps, and then a model with sampling time
equal 4Ts is used for 2 steps (i.e. the prediction interval
10Ts is covered by 4 prediction steps). Weights on
manipulated variable rates P = 1 , weights on the output
signals Q = diag (0;0;0;0;1000000 ) , and sampling time
Ts = 100 μs . Integrator parameters are: kint = 200,
Pint = 0.1 .
The weights on the output currents and fluxes are set to
zero because the reference trajectories of those signals are
unknown, and thus they have no effect on the objective
function J .
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Computer simulations have been carried out in order to
validate the robustness of the proposed scheme. The Matlab
/ Simulink software package with a c-mex file interfacing
the proposed controller has been used. Different operating
conditions including load change and various speed
trajectories have been considered. The data of the LIM used
for simulation procedure are [11]: 3-phase, Y-connected, 2-
pole, 3-kW, 60-Hz, 180-V, 14.2 A. The motor parameters
are listed below in Table 1.
TABLE 1. PARAMETERS AND DATA OF THE LIM
Rs (Ω) 5.3685 Pole pitch, h (m) 0.027
Rr (Ω) 3.5315 Total mass of the mover, M (kg). 2.78
Viscous friction and iron-loss
Ls (H) 0.02846 36.0455
coefficient, D (kg/s)
Lr (H) 0.02846 Force constant, Kf (N/wb.A) 148.35
⎡v ⎤ Lm (H) 0.02419 Rated secondary flux, (wb) 0.056
⎣i ⎦
Figure 3 shows the speed responses of the proposed
analytical NMPC controller and also that obtained with
classical DTC. Notice that the DTC controller does not
require any tuning. The LIM is assumed to start at t=0 and
accelerated up to 2 m/s in the first 0.2 second. Then the
motor speed is kept constant at this value during the
remaining simulation period. Also the load force is stepped
from 350 N to 550 N at t = 0.5 seconds. It is worthy to note
that the acceleration period (0.2 s) is considered to be long
enough for the motor to attain the desired speed (2 m/s).
This is because the tested motor is of small size and weight
and therefore has a mechanical time constant of 0.077 s.
While the DTC needs about 0.5 seconds in order to attain
the steady state value both from start and after the load
disturbance took place, the Analytical NMPC controller
takes less than 0.02 seconds only and it has much better
tracking performance. At t = 0.5 seconds there is a very
small dip in the speed response due to the load change, but
the controller succeeded in restoring the speed reference
very quickly. It is obvious that the proposed controller
response is much faster than that of the DTC response and
that it is able to deal with load changes more efficiently.
1942
 For this simulation, the maximum number of transitions 0.4
Load Change

of the inverter switches for the classical DTC approach was Speed Response
0.2

Speed
0

25764/s, while for the analytical approach it was only -0.2 Speed Reference

1056/s, with a reduction of 95.9% for the switching

-0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

frequency. Applying discrete DTC controller with the same

1000

sampling time leads to a lower performance, and the

Fe
500

maximum number of transitions of the inverter switches in 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

this case was 4879/s. 40

3 20

Load Change

iabc
0

-20

2 -40
0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.6
Time (s)
Analytical NMPC
Response
1 Figure 4. Simulation results obtained with the Analytical NMPC controller
at low speed.
Speed Reference
The choice of the weighting matrix on the manipulated
Speed (m/s)

DTC Response variable rates P affects the switches transitions frequency.

-1
As P get higher values, the penalties on the control
variations increase which leads to a reduction of the
-2
switching frequency. However this could have a bad effect
on the performance of speed tracking. A trade-off between
-3
the switching frequency and the speed tracking performance,
can be done through the choice of P .
-4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time (s)
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 5 and Table 2 show the effect of the penalty matrix
Figure 3. Analytical NMPC response versus DTC response P on the maximum switching frequency and also its effect
The performance of the analytical NMPC controller was on the tracking performance. The same high-speed scenario
tested also at low speed (0.1 m/s), which is more is considered. Figure 5 shows the speed tracking
challenging, with the same load change as in the previous performance for two cases; for P = 10000 , and also for
scenario. The same controller parameters were used, i.e. P = 1 . With P = 10000 we have a lower switching
without doing a fine tuning. The worst case of ripples over frequency (654/s), but a relatively poor performance is
the current and torque occurs at such low speed. Figure 4 obtained.
shows the simulation waveforms obtained. They are from 2.5
Load Change
Reference
with P = 10000
with P = 1
top to bottom: the speed response, the developed 2

electromagnetic force (Fe) and the three phase primary

currents. The later is enlarged during the period from 1.5
Speed (m/s)

t = 0.35 to 0.65 s. in which the load change occurs. Again 1

the controller responds quickly to the load disturbance and

behaves well at low speed. The 3-phase currents and the 0.5

electromagnetic force have much lower ripples than those 0

with the DTC technique for such low speed. The maximum
switching frequency in this case was 1315/s with a reduction -0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (s)
of 93.48 % as compared to the classical DTC for the same
Figure 5. Effect of the penalty matrix P on the tracking performance.
scenario.
The robustness of the analytical NMPC controller against TABLE 2: EFFECTS OF PENALTIES ON SWITCHING FREQUENCY
Weighting Penalty Max. switching frequency / s.
parameter variations was examined. The primary resistance
P= 0.01 1096/s
detuning is considered in this test because it has significant
P= 1.0 1056/s (shown in Figure 5)
effect on the flux estimation especially at low speeds. The P= 100 852/s
value of the primary resistance Rs has been increased by P= 10000 654/s (shown in Figure 5)
50% in the LIM model, while it is kept constant at its
All constraints on fluxes and currents are satisfied in the
nominal value in the controller. As it was the case for
previously investigated scenarios as shown for example in
classical MPC [14], the proposed controller was very robust
Figure 6, where typical constraints are: secondary flux less
against this variation and almost there is no effect on the
than 0.45 and primary current value less than 50 A.
speed response.

1943
Lamda(alfa & Beta) 0.2
Load Change
0.1
0 is no need to use a PWM inverter, and moreover, it reduces
-0.1
-0.2
0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
40
20
iabc
-20
-40
0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
Time (s)
Figure 6. The secondary flux and primary currents are within the constraints
A. Complexity analysis
The computational time is mainly affected by the control
horizon N u , where the objective function is evaluated
(6 Nu ) times at each sampling step. The proposed techniques
with N u = 1 and N = 10 (one discrete model) takes in
average 140 μs . Applying multiple model concepts (10
prediction interval covered by 4 steps) reduces the
computation time to 70 μs (faster than the sampling time),
all previous results ware done with those horizon values.
With control horizon N u = 2 (10 intervals – 4 steps), it
takes 340 μs . All the simulations are run in Matlab 7.8 on a
3 MHz PC with 2 Mram.
Needless to say, for the classical MPC controller the
computational time because of on-line linearization and
optimization will be substantially higher, even if commercial
optimization software such as CPLEX [8] is used. This
makes it impractical to implement in real time.
Previous simulation results prove the success of the
presented technique; it has a good performance on speed
tracking at high speed as well as at low speed. It is robust
against load changes and parameter variations. It is also
succeeded in reducing the average switching frequency.
Moreover, the proposed controller reduces significantly the
computational time as compared to classical MPC
approaches, which makes it applicable in real time
application.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper considers the speed tracking control problem
of a linear induction motor. It presents a new analytical
NMPC controller based on the model predictive control
approach. The developed controller controls directly the
inverter switches to track the speed trajectory of the linear
induction motor drive. The controller succeeds in tracking
the speed trajectory at high and low speed and it reduces the
switching frequency in the range of about 93% as compared
with classical DCT, so that inverters with a limited
switching frequency can be used.
The proposed MPC controller response has many
advantages; besides being simple to construct and to
implement, it has a very fast response, lower ripples over
currents and electromagnetic force in comparison to the
classical DTC approach, and robustness against load
changes and parameter variations. With this technique there
significantly the computational time, which is the inherent
0.6 0.65 drawback of the classical MPC controller. Thus a real time
implementation is possible.
Future work will include experimental works to validate
this technique practically. Finally, the same technique will
be examined for other machines like the rotary induction
motor, and the permanent magnet synchronous motor.
0.6 0.65
REFERENCES
[1] Abdou G.H., and S. A. Sherif, (1991). Theoritical and experimental
design of LIM in automated manufacturing systems. IEEE Trans.
Indust. Appl, Vol. 27, No.2, pp.286-293.
[2] Boldea I., and S. A. Nasar, (1997). Linear electric actuators and
generators. Cambridge University Press, UK.
[3] Bucci G., S. Meo, A. Ometto, and M. Scarano, (1994). The control of
LIM by a generalization of standard vector techniques, Proc. of IEEE
IAS, pp. 623-626.
[4] Dumur D. and P. Boucher, (1998). A Review Introduction to Linear
GPC and Applications. Journal A, 39(4), pp. 21-35.
[5] Gastli A., (1998). Compensation for the effect of joints in the
secondary conductors of a linear induction motor. IEEE Trans. On
Energy Conversion, Vol. 13, No.2, pp. 111-116.
[6] Gastli A., (2000). Asymmetrical constants and effect of joints in the
secondary conductors of a linear induction motor. IEEE Trans. On
Energy Conversion, Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 251-256.
[7] Habetler T. G., F. Profumo, M. Pastorelli, and L. M. Tolbert, (1992).
Direct torque control of induction machines using space vector
modulation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Application, Vol. 28, pp.1045-1053.
[8] ILOG, Inc., (2000). CPLEX 7.0 User Manual. Mountain View, CA,
USA; www.ilog.com.
[9] Lascu C., I. Boldea, and F. Blaabjerg, (2000). A modified direct
torque control of induction motor sensorless drive. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Application, Vol. 36, pp.122-130.
[10] Lin F.-J., P.-H. Shen, and S.-P. Hsu, (2002). Adaptive backstepping
sliding mode control for linear induction motor drive. IEE Proc.
Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 149, No.3, pp. 184-194.
[11] Lin F.-J., and Rong-Jong Wai, (2002). Robust control using neural
network uncertainty observer for linear induction motor servodrive.
IEEE Trans. On power Electronics, Vol. 17, No.2, pp.241-251.
[12] Takahashi I., and Y. Ide, (1993). Decoupling control of thrust and
attractive force of a LIM using a space vector control inverter. IEEE
Trans. Indust. Appl, Vol. 29, No.1, pp.161-167.
[13] Zhang Z., T. R Eastham, and G.E. Dawson, (1993). Peak thrust
operation of linear induction machines from parameter identification.
Proc. of IEEE IAS, pp. 375-379.
[14] Hassan A. and J. Thomas (2008). Model Predictive Control of Linear
Induction Motor Drive. Proceedings of the 17th IFAC World
Congress, Vol. 17 Part 1, COEX, Seoul, South Korea.
[15] Geyer T. and G. Papafotiou (2005). Direct Torque Control for
Induction Motor Drives: A Model Predictive Control Approach Based
on Feasibility. Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, LNCS
3414, pp. 274-290.
[16] Papafotiou G., T. Geyer and M. Morari (2004). Optimal Direct Torque
Control of three-phase symmetric Induction Motors. In Proceedings of
the 43th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Atlantis,
Bahamas.
[17] Itoh K. and H. Kubota (2005). “Thrust ripple reduction of linear
induction motor with direct torque control,” Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems, ICEMS
2005, vol. 1, pp. 655-658, 2005.
[18] Marcos Vinicius Lazarini and Ernesto Ruppert Filho (2007).
Sensorless three-phase induction motor direct torque control using
sliding mode control strategy laboratory set-up for motor speed
control teaching. International Conference on Engineering Education
– ICEE 2007.
1944