2022
DOI: 10.1109/tia.2022.3190812
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ANN Optimization of Weighting Factors Using Genetic Algorithm for Model Predictive Control of PMSM Drives

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Weighting factor removal by reference transformation 33,34 Higher computational burden as compared with conventional PTC and difficult to incorporate multiple control objectives 35 Weighting factor tuning based on coefficient of variation 36 Optimized weights are uncertain in this method and complex calculations are required to implement on hardware Weighting factor tuning based on TOPSIS and NSGA-II methods 37 TOPSIS and NSGA-II algorithms require complex calculations leading to computational challenges 12 Weighting factor removal by Ranking method 38 Ranking based techniques become unfeasible as number of control objectives increases 39 Tuning of weighting factor based on simple additive technique 40 Although technique is simple but not suitable for multiple control objectives 11 Weighting factor tuning based on current ripples 41 Highly dependent on parameter estimation 8,42 Tuning of weighting factor based on error of control objectives 43 This method becomes challenging and complex when number of control objectives increases 44 Weighting factor tuning using Genetic Algorithm (GA) 45 , Simulated Annealing (SA) 42 or Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) 43 , Artificial Neural Network 46 , Ant colony based optimization 47 These algorithms are very complex and pose computational challenges 48 Weighting factor tuning based on algebraic/numerical techniques 49 Design complexity increases as slection of weighting factor increases 50 Weighting factor selection based on homogeneous cost functions [51][52][53] This technique is relatively efficient but unable to include multiple control objectives 54 Direct vector selection based techniques to remove weighting factors from cost function 55,56 Direct vector selection techniques provid lower computational burden and lower complexity , however cannot incorporate multiple control objecitve 57 Weighting factor elimination by using cascaded structure of FCS-MPC …”
Section: Ptc Methods Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Weighting factor removal by reference transformation 33,34 Higher computational burden as compared with conventional PTC and difficult to incorporate multiple control objectives 35 Weighting factor tuning based on coefficient of variation 36 Optimized weights are uncertain in this method and complex calculations are required to implement on hardware Weighting factor tuning based on TOPSIS and NSGA-II methods 37 TOPSIS and NSGA-II algorithms require complex calculations leading to computational challenges 12 Weighting factor removal by Ranking method 38 Ranking based techniques become unfeasible as number of control objectives increases 39 Tuning of weighting factor based on simple additive technique 40 Although technique is simple but not suitable for multiple control objectives 11 Weighting factor tuning based on current ripples 41 Highly dependent on parameter estimation 8,42 Tuning of weighting factor based on error of control objectives 43 This method becomes challenging and complex when number of control objectives increases 44 Weighting factor tuning using Genetic Algorithm (GA) 45 , Simulated Annealing (SA) 42 or Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) 43 , Artificial Neural Network 46 , Ant colony based optimization 47 These algorithms are very complex and pose computational challenges 48 Weighting factor tuning based on algebraic/numerical techniques 49 Design complexity increases as slection of weighting factor increases 50 Weighting factor selection based on homogeneous cost functions [51][52][53] This technique is relatively efficient but unable to include multiple control objectives 54 Direct vector selection based techniques to remove weighting factors from cost function 55,56 Direct vector selection techniques provid lower computational burden and lower complexity , however cannot incorporate multiple control objecitve 57 Weighting factor elimination by using cascaded structure of FCS-MPC …”
Section: Ptc Methods Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other meta-heuristic methods include gravitational search algorithm (GSA) 43 , non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [10][11][12] . ANN methods are reported in 46,[63][64][65][66] . However, they also suffer from higher computational burden and tend to increase the complexity of the controller.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A summary of the most popular techniques is presented in Figure 3. It is commonly known that the number of training epochs defined for the calculations significantly influences the fitting of data using the neural model [23]. Increasing the number of iterations results in an improved agreement with the training data.…”
Section: Preliminaries and Short Description Of Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some other efforts devoted to removing weighting factors need to normalize controlled quantities or convert them into equivalents [8]. It is interesting that some advanced algorithms such as artificial neural networks [9], fuzzy optimization [10], genetic algorithms [11], and particle swarm optimization [12], have been used to deal with the weighting factor issue in MPC. These advanced algorithms increase the complexity, which removes one of the advantages of MPC implementations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%