ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Real-Time Implementation and Comparative Analysis of FOC and FCS-MPCC-Based PMSM Drives for Electric Vehicles.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a growing trend towards vehicles powered by alternative energy sources due to the environmental pollution caused by fossil fuel vehicles. Electric vehicles (EVs) are thought to make a significant contribution to reducing environmental pollution. This study presents a performance comparison of field-oriented control (FOC) and finite control set-based model predictive current control (FCS-MPCC) methods for controlling PMSM motors, which are commonly preferred for EV applications. A multilevel ANPC inverter topology, which has a higher-quality power flow than classical two-level inverters, was preferred to power the PMSM. While the classical FOC method has a fixed switching frequency by including cascaded PI controllers and a pulse width modulation (PWM) modulator, the FCS-MPCC method determines a variable frequency-switching signal that minimizes the cost function by predicting the future current behavior of the PMSM using the mathematical model of the system. The performance comparison of FOC and FCS-MPCC methods was carried out by conducting real-time experimental studies. Both control algorithms were analyzed under variable speed and load conditions using the same motor and drive structure. Performance analysis of FOC and FCS-MPCC control algorithms was carried out in terms of speed tracking, torque, current, and harmonics. According to the results obtained, the total harmonic distortion (THD) value of the stator current was 7.03% in the FOC method, while it was 22.19% in the FCS-MPCC method. Furthermore, a comparative analysis was conducted on the dynamic performance of the two methods in different scenarios using the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), integral absolute error (IAE), integrated time absolute error (ITAE), and integral squared error (ISE) criteria. The FCS-MPCC method was observed to be superior in different speed scenarios according to these criteria. In terms of processor load, it was calculated as 17.09% in the FOC method and 63.75% in the FCS-MPCC method. This study is important for determining the control strategy of PMSMs used in EV drives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.