VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA

A SEMINAR REPORT ON

Predictive Control In Power Control And Drives

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of degree of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
In

ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

Submitted By

Hassaan Askiri
4SO18EE019

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

UG Programme Accredited by National Board of Accreditation

ST JOSEPH ENGINEERING COLLEGE

Vamanjoor, Mangaluru – 575028, Karnataka

2020 - 2021
 ST JOSEPH ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Vamanjoor, Mangaluru – 575028, Karnataka

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS

ENGINEERING
UG Programme Accredited by National Board of Accreditation

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the seminar entitled Predictive Control In Power Electronics And
Drives has been carried out by Hassaan Askiri bearing USN 4SO18EE019 prescribed
by Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi for Eighth Semester BE (EEE)
course during the year 2020 - 2021.

Mr Sathisha K
HOD
 ST JOSEPH ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Vamanjoor, Mangaluru – 575028, Karnataka

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS

ENGINEERING
UG Programme Accredited by National Board of Accreditation

APPROVAL

This seminar entitled Predictive Control In Power Electronics And Drives is hereby
approved as a creditable study of an engineering subject carried out and presented in a
satisfactory manner its acceptance as a pre-requisite to the degree of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
In

ELECTRICAL& ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

Dr Sanath Saralaya
Associate Professor
Seminar Guide

Name of the Student : H a s s a a n A s k i r i

University Seat Number:4SO18EE019

Name of the Examiner Signature with Date

1.

2.
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

ABSTRACT

The Predictive control is a very wide class of controllers that have found rather recent
application in the control of power converters. Research on this topic has been increased in
the last years due to the possibilities of today’s microprocessors used for the control. This
paper presents the application of different predictive control methods to power electronics
and drives. A simple classification of the most important types of predictive control is
introduced, and each one of them is explained including some application examples.
Predictive control presents several advantages that make it suitable for the control of power
converters and drives. The different control schemes and applications presented in this
paper illustrate the effectiveness and flexibility of predictive control.

Keywords: Drives, power electronics, predictive control

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|1

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

CONTENTS

SI.N Title Page No

1. Introduction…....................................................................... 4

2. Predictive Control Methods............................................... 5-10

3. Hysteresis-Based Predictive Control.................................... 11
4. Trajectory-Based Predictive Control…................................12

5. Deadbeat-Based Predictive Control......................................13-14

6. MPC…................................................................................... 15

7. FS-MPC…..................................................................................16

8. Conclusion….............................................................................. 18

9. References….............................................................................. 19

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|2

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

LIST OF FIGURES

SI.No Title Page.No

1. Basic methods of converter control........................................ 4

2. Classification of predictive control methods used in power

electronics.............................................................................. 6

3. Hysteresis-based predictive control....................................... 8

4. Predictive current control, boundary circle, and space

vector...................................................................................... 9

5. DSPC......................................................................................9

6. DSPC: Trajectories in the e/a-state plane….......................... 10

7. Deadbeat current................................................................... 12

8. Illustration of deadbeat current controller operation……………… 12

9. Experimental tracking performance of active power

control for command change from 1 to 2 kW. (Upper
figure) Constant switching frequency P-DPC with grid
voltage sensors. (Lower figure) Constant switching
frequency VF-P-DPC without grid voltage sensors.
(From the top) Commanded and measured active and
reactive powers…………………………………………………………… 13

10. Moving horizon principle N=3……………………………………… 17

11. Typical field-oriented control of an induction machine.……..19

12. Experimental tracking performance of current control:

(a) With PI controllers designed according to symmetrica
l optimum and
(b) With model predictive controller [44]………………………….20
13. FS-MPS……………………………………………………………………….22

14. Current control of a three-phase inverter using FS-MPC:

Experimental result…………………………………………………………23

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|3

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of power converters has become very popular in the recent decades for a wide range of
applications, including drives, energy conversion, traction, and distributed generation. The
control of power converters has been extensively studied, and new control schemes are
presented every year. Several control schemes have been proposed for the control of power
converters and drives. Some of them are shown in Fig. 1. From these, hysteresis and linear
controls with pulsewidth modulation (PWM) are the most established in the literature [1]–[3].
However, with the development of faster and more powerful microprocessors, the
implementation of new and more complex control schemes is possible. Some of these new
control schemes for power converters include fuzzy logic, sliding mode control, and predictive
control. Fuzzy logic is suitable for applications where the controlled system or some of its
parameters are unknown. Sliding mode presents robustness and takes into account the
switching nature of the power converters. Other control schemes found in the literature include
neural networks, neuro–fuzzy, and other advanced control techniques.

Fig. 1. Basic methods of converter control

Predictive control presents several advantages that make it suitable for the control of power
converters: Concepts are intuitive and easy to understand, it can be applied to a variety of
systems, constraints and nonlinearities can be easily included, multivariable case can be
considered, and the resulting controller is easy to implement. It requires a high amount of

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|4

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

calculations, compared to a classic control scheme; however, the fast microprocessors

available today make possible the implementation of predictive control. Generally, the quality
of the controller depends on the quality of the model. This paper presents a survey of the most
important types of predictive control applied in power electronics and drives. A classification
of them is proposed in Section II, and each type of predictive control is explained in the
following sections, including some application examples. Hysteresis-based predictive control
is presented in Section III, trajectory-based predictive control in Section IV, deadbeat control
in Section V, model predictive control (MPC) in Section VI, MPC with finite control set in
Section VII, and finally, some conclusions are presented.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|5

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

2. Predictive Control Methods

Predictive control is a very wide class of controllers that have found rather recent application
in power converters. The classification proposed in this paper for different predictive control
methods is shown in Fig. 2. The main characteristic of predictive control is the use of the
model of the system for the prediction of the future behavior of the controlled variables. This
information is used by the controller in order to obtain the optimal actuation, according to a
predefined optimization criterion. The optimization criterion in the hysteresis-based predictive
control is to keep the controlled variable within the boundaries of a hysteresis area, while in
the trajectory based, the variables are forced to follow a predefined trajectory. In deadbeat
control, the optimal actuation is the one that makes the error equal to zero in the next sampling
instant. A more flexible criterion is used in MPC, expressed as a cost function to be minimized.
The difference between these groups of controllers is that deadbeat control and MPC with
continuous control set need a modulator, in order to generate the required voltage. This will

Fig. 2. Classification of predictive control methods used in power electronics

result in having a fixed switching frequency. The other controllers directly generate the
switching signals for the converter, do not need a modulator, and present a variable switching
frequency. One advantage of predictive control is that concepts are very simple and intuitive.
Depending on the type of predictive control, implementation can also be simple, as with
deadbeat control and finite control set MPC (FS-MPC) (particularly for a two-level converter
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|6
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

with horizon N = 1). However, in general, some implementations of MPC can be more
complex. Variations of the basic deadbeat control, in order to make it more robust, can also
become very complex and difficult to understand. Using predictive control, it is possible to
avoid the cascaded structure, which is typically used in a linear control scheme, obtaining very
fast transient responses. An example of this is the speed control using trajectory-based
predictive control. Nonlinearities of the system can be included in the model, avoiding the
need of linearizing the model for a given operating point and improving the operation of the
system for all conditions. It is also possible to include restrictions to some variables when
designing the controller. These advantages can be very easily implemented in some control
schemes as MPC, but it is very difficult in schemes as deadbeat control. A more detailed
description of each type of predictive control is shown in the next sections.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|7

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

3. Hysterisis-Based Predictive Control

Hysteresis-based predictive control strategies try to keep the controlled system variables
between the boundaries of a hysteresis area or space. The most simple form of this principle is
the so-called “bang–bang controller.” Although bang–bang controllers usually are not
considered as predictive controllers in literature, they clearly show the characteristics of a
typical predictive controller. An improved form of a bang–bang controller is the predictive
current controller proposed by Holtz and Stadtfeld [4]. The block diagram of the hysteresis-
based predictive control is shown in Fig. 3. Using predictive current control, the switching

Fig. 3. Hysteresis-based predictive control

instants are determined by suitable error boundaries. As an example, Fig. 4 shows a circular
boundary, the location of which is controlled by the current reference vector i ∗ s. When the
current vector is touches the boundary line, the next switching state vector is determined by
prediction and optimization. The trajectories of the current vector for each possible switching state
are computed, and predictions are made of the respective time intervals required to reach the error
boundary again. These events also depend on the location of the error boundary, which is
considered moving in the complex plane as commanded by the predicted current reference. The
movement is indicated by the dotted circle in Fig. 4. The predictions of the switching instants are
based on mathematical equations of the machine. The switching state vector that produces the
maximum on-time is finally selected. This corresponds to minimizing the switching frequency.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|8

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

The maximum possible switching frequency is limited by the computing time of the algorithms
which determine the optimal switching state vector. Higher frequencies can be handled by
employing the double prediction method: Well before the boundary is reached, the actual current
trajectory is predicted in order to identify the time instant at which the boundary transition is likely

Fig. 4. Predictive current control, boundary circle, and space vector

Fig. 5. DSPC

to occur. The back electromotive force (EMF) vector at this time instant is predicted then. It is
used for the optimal selection of the future switching state vector using the earlier described
procedure. A further reduction of the switching frequency, which may be needed in very high-
power applications, can be achieved by defining a current error boundary of rectangular shape,
having the rectangle aligned with the rotor flux vector of the machine. Using field-oriented
predictive current control, the switching frequency can be reduced more than with a circular
boundary area in stator coordinates [5]. Holtz and Stadtfeld optimized their predictive controller
for minimum switching frequency. Today, different optimizing criteria are considered, e.g., low
current distortion or low electromagnetic inferences (EMIs). Modifications of the predictive
current control are consequently under consideration.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|9

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

4. TRAJECTORY-BASED
PREDICTIVE CONTROL

The principle of trajectory-based predictive control strategies is to force the

system’s variables onto precalculated trajectories. Control algorithms according
to this strategy are direct self control by Depenbrock [6] or direct mean torque
control by Flach et al. [7]. Some additional methods like sliding mode control [8]
or direct torque control [9] are a combination of hysteresis- and trajectory-based
strategies, whereas direct speed control (DSPC) by Mutschler [10] can be
identified as a trajectory-based control system, although it also has a few
hysteresis-based aspects. DSPC will be further explained as an example of
trajectory-based predictive controllers. Unlike cascade controllers, predictive
control algorithms offer the possibility to directly control the desired system
values. Most predictive control methods published so far only deal with stator
currents, torque, or flux (linear) directly; the drive speed is controlled by a
superimposed control loop. DSPC, shown in Fig. 5, in contrast, has no control
loop of this type; the switching events in the inverter are calculated in a way
where speed is directly controlled in a time-optimal manner. Similar to the
methods of Depenbrock [6] and Takahashi and Nogushi [9], the switching states
of the inverter are classified as “torque increasing,” “slowly torque decreasing,”
or “rapidly torque decreasing.” For small time intervals, the inertia of the system
and the derivatives of machine and load torques are assumed as constant values.
The behavior of the system leads to a set of parabolas in the speed error versus
acceleration area as shown in Fig. 6.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|10

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Fig. 6. DSPC: Trajectories in the e/a-state plane.

The initial state of the system is assumed to be ek/ak. In this state, a torque increasing voltage vector
has to be produced by the inverter, and therefore, the switching state Sk is chosen. The state now
travels along the dotted parabola until the point ek+1/ak+1 is reached. This is the intersection with
another parabola for a “torque decreasing” switching state Sk+1, which will pass through the point
“+Hy.” The intersection ek+1/ak+1 has been precalculated as the optimal switching instant to reach
the desired state point “+Hy” as fast as possible. Therefore, in ek+1/ak+1, the inverter is commutated
into the switching state Sk+1. Then, the state of the system travels along the new parabola until the
point ek+2/ak+2 is reached. At this point, the inverter is switched again into a torque increasing state
Sk+2. The corresponding trajectory passes the point “−Hy.” In steady state, the state moves along the
path +Hy − ek+2/ak+2 − Hy − ek+3/ak+3 − +Hy. Hence, the speed error e is kept in the hysteresis
band between −Hy and +Hy. This is the hysteresis aspect of this strategy aforementioned. Of course,
the optimal steady-state point would be the point of origin. Since the switching frequency of the
inverter is limited, the drive state cannot be fixed to that point. Therefore, the hysteresis band is
defined to keep the switching frequency in an acceptable range. The algorithm of DSPC clearly shows
the main principle of predictive control that foreknowledge of the drive system is used to precalculate
the optimal switching states instead of trying to linearize the nonlinear parts of the system and then
control them by PI controllers. The speed can be controlled directly without a cascade structure.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|11

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

5. DEADBEAT-BASED PREDICTIVE CONTROL

A well-known type of predictive controller is the deadbeat controller. This approach

uses the model of the system to calculate, once every sampling period, the required
reference voltage in order to reach the reference value in the next sampling instant. Then,
this voltage is applied using a modulator. It has been applied for current control in three-
phase inverters [11]–[21], rectifiers [22], [23], active filters [24], [25], power factor
correctors [26], power factor preregulators [27], [28], uninterruptible power supplies
[29]–[31], dc–dc converters [32], and torque control of induction machines [33]. While

Fig. 7. Deadbeat current control

Fig. 8. Illustration of deadbeat current controller operation.

this method has been used when a fast dynamic response is required, being deadbeat-based, it
is often fragile. Indeed, errors in the parameter values of the model, unmodeled delays and
other errors in the model often deteriorate system performance and may even give rise to
instability. Another disadvantage of these deadbeat control schemes is that non-linearities and
constraints of the system variables are difficult to incorporate.
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|12
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Deadbeat Current Control

A typical deadbeat current control scheme is shown in Fig. 7. It can be noted that, compared to
a classic current control scheme, the PI controller has been replaced by the deadbeat controller.
The reference voltage is applied using a modulator. The load model for a generic RLE load is
described by the following space vector equation
v = Ri + Ldi dt + e (1)
where v is the voltage space vector, i is the current space vector, and e is the EMF voltage space
vector. The following discrete-time equation can be obtained from (1) for a sampling time
Ts: 1 δ i(k + 1) − χ δ i(k) = v(k) − e(k) (2)
where, δ = e−TsR/L and χ = 1/R(1 − e−TsR/L).
Based on the discrete-time model (2), the reference voltage vector is obtained as
v∗ (k) = 1 δ [i ∗ (k + 1) − χi(k)] + e(k).
Reference voltage v∗ is applied in the converter using a modulator. The basic operating principle of
deadbeat current control is shown in Fig. 8. Here, the load current i at time k is different to the

Fig. 9. Experimental results for the deadbeat current control.

(a) Conventional deadbeat current controller implemented
in a full digital system (without any compensation).
(b) Modified deadbeat current controller proposed in [34].

reference current i ∗ . This error is used for calculation of the reference voltage v∗ , which is
applied to the load at time k. Ideally, at time k + 1, the load current will be equal to the reference
current.
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|13
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Modifications to Basic Algorithm

When implemented in a real system, several problems may appear and deteriorate the
performance of a deadbeat controller. One of them is the delay introduced by calculation time and
modulation. This problem has been solved in [17], [18], and [20] by considering this delay in the
model. Another important issue is the sensitivity to plant uncertainties and errors in the model
parameter values. This problem has been studied, and several solutions have been proposed,
including the use of an adaptive self-tuning scheme [34], a predictive internal model [35], and
neural networks [36]. Some results comparing the implementation of the conventional deadbeat
current controller, i.e., using (3), implemented in a full digital system without any compensation
of the calculation delay, and the modified deadbeat controller proposed in [34] are shown in Fig. 9.
In some applications, information about the disturbances is needed by the controller, and these
include variables which are not measured. In these cases, the use of disturbance observers has
been proposed [28], [30]. Other specific applications can require a modified algorithm for reduced
switching frequency, as proposed in [37].

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|14

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

6. MPC

CMPC, also referred to as receding horizon control, is the only one among the so-
called advanced control techniques (usually understood as techniques more
advanced than a standard PID control) which has been extremely successful in
practical applications in recent decades, exerting a great influence on research and
development directions of industrial control systems. Applications and theoretical
results abound; see, e.g., the books [38]–[40] and survey papers [41]–[44]. An
attractive feature of MPC is that it can handle general constrained nonlinear systems
with multiple inputs and outputs in a unified and clear manner. In this section, we
will focus on MPC formulations where a continuous control set is considered and
controller outputs are first passed through modulators, which then provide the
switch positions. A survey on FS-MPC formulations which control the states of the
converter switches directly, i.e., without any intermediate modulators, will be given
later in Section VII. Although the problem setting is common for both finite and
infinite control set MPC, for sake of practical implications we will discuss it
separately.

System Model
Most MPC strategies are formulated in a discrete-time setting with a fixed
sampling interval, for example, h > 0. Here, system inputs are restricted to change
their values only at the discrete sampling instants, i.e., at times t = kh, where k ∈ {0,
1, 2,...} denotes the sampling instants. Since power electronics applications are
often governed by nonlinear dynamic relations, it is convenient to represent the
system to be controlled in discrete-time state space form via
x(k + 1) = f (x(k), u(k)), k ∈ {0, 1, 2,...} (4)
where x(k) denotes the state value at time k, whereas u(k) is the plant
input. As aforementioned, in this section, we will study configurations where the
controller output feeds into a modulator stage which then provides the switch
positions. Consequently, we will restrict the system inputs {u(k)} in (4) according
to
u(k) ∈ U ⊆ Rp, k ∈ {0, 1, 2,...} (5)

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|15

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

where U is a polytope and p denotes the number of switches. For

example, the components of u(k) could correspond to duty cycles or PWM
reference signals, in which case, U is formed of intervals, namely, U = [0, 1]p.
Clearly, the aforementioned model can only approximate switching effects, see also
[45]. Nevertheless, as we will see, several interesting proposals for power
electronics and drives have been developed by using this simple setting. In addition
to the constraints on the system inputs, MPC also allows one to incorporate state
constraints, for example
x(k) ∈ X ⊆ Rn, k ∈ {0, 1, 2,...}. (6)
State constraints can, for example, correspond to constraints on capacitor
voltages in flying capacitor converters or neutral point clamped converters.
Constraints on inductive load currents can also be modeled as state constraints.

Cost Function
In MPC, at each time instant k and for a given (measured or estimated) plant state
x(k), a cost function over a finite horizon of length N is minimized. The following
choice encompasses many alternatives documented in the literature:
V (x(k), u_x0005_ (k)) Δ = F (x_x0005_ (k + N)) + k+ N−1 =k
L(x_x0005_ (_x0005_), u_x0005_ (_x0005_)). (7)
Here, L(·, ·) and F(·) are weighting functions which serve to penalize predicted system
behavior, e.g., differences between voltage references and predicted values; see Section
VI-D. Predicted plant state values are formed according to
x_x0005_ (_x0005_+1)=f (x_x0005_ (_x0005_), u_x0005_ (_x0005_)),
_x0005_ ∈ {k, k+1,...,k+N −1} (8)
where, u_x0005_ (_x0005_) ∈ U, _x0005_ ∈ {k, k + 1,...,k + N − 1} (9)
refers to tentative plant inputs. The recursion (8) is initialized with the current plant
state measurement, i.e.,
x_x0005_ (k) ←− x(k). (10)
Thus, (8) refers to the predictions of the plant states which would result if the plant
input at the time instants {k, k + 1,..., k + N − 1} was set equal to the corresponding
values in
1 u_x0005_ (k) Δ = {u_x0005_ (k), u_x0005_ (k + 1),...,u_x0005_ (k + N
− 1)} . (11)

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|16

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Both the predicted plant state trajectory and the plant inputs are constrained in
accordance with (5), i.e., we have
u_x0005_ (_x0005_) ∈ U x_x0005_ (_x0005_) ∈ X ∀_x0005_ ∈ {k, k
+ 1,...,k + N − 1}. (12)
In addition, x_x0005_ (k + N) is typically required to satisfy a given terminal state
constraint, for example
x_x0005_ (k + N) ∈ Xf ⊆ X. (13)
Note that, generally, the selection of the terminal state constraint is related to the
stability issues [38], [39]. The constrained minimization of V (·, ·) as in (7) gives the
optimizing control sequence at time k and for state

x(k) u(k) Δ = {u(k; k), u(k + 1; k),...,u(k + N − 1; k)} . (14)

Moving Horizon Optimization

Despite the fact that u(k) contains feasible plant inputs over the entire horizon, in standard MPC,
only the first element is used, i.e., the system input is set to
u(k) ←− u(k; k). (15)
At the next sampling step, i.e., at time k + 1, the system state x(k + 1) is measured (or estimated), the

Fig. 10. Moving horizon principle N = 3

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|17

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

horizon is shifted by one step, and another optimization is carried out. This yields u(k + 1) and u(k + 1)
= u(k + 1; k + 1), etc. As shown in Fig. 10 for a horizon length N = 3, the horizon taken into account
in the minimization of V slides forward as k increases. Thus, MPC amounts to an open-loop-optimal
feedback control method; see, e.g., [46]. Note that the past is propagated forward in time via the plant
state sequence {x(k)}.

Design Parameters
As seen previously, MPC allows one to treat multivariable nonlinear systems in an, at least,
conceptually simple way. In addition to choosing the sampling interval h [which determines the
system model (4)], the MPC design essentially amounts to selecting the cost function, i.e., the
weighting functions F(·) and L(·, ·), the horizon length N, and, possibly, the state constraint sets X and
Xf . 1) Weighting Functions: The design of the weighting functions F(·) and L(·, ·) is related to the
actual control objectives.2 For example, the tracking of the desired output and internal voltages and
currents can be accommodated into the MPC framework by choosing weights which penalize a
measure of the difference between predicted and reference values. In [47], it was shown how spectral
characteristics of voltage and current tracking errors can be controlled through the use of frequency
selective weighting. More details on this approach will be given in Section VII. 2) Horizon Length:
For a given sampling frequency 1/h and, particularly for a system with nonminimum phase dynamics,
larger values for the horizon length N will, in general, provide better performance, as quantified by the
weighting functions F(·) and L(·, ·). Indeed, one can expect that, for an Nthat is large enough, the
effect of u(k) on x_x0005_ (_x0005_) for _x0005_>k + N will be negligible, and consequently, MPC
will approximate the performance of an infinite horizon optimal controller. On the other hand, the
constrained optimization problem which needs to be solved online to find the controller output, has
computational complexity which, in general, increases with the horizon length. As a consequence, the
optimization horizon parameter N allows the designer to tradeoff performance versus online
computational effort. Fortunately, excellent performance can often be achieved with relatively small
horizons. Interestingly, in some situations, the stability of the closed loop model x(k + 1) = f(x(k), u(k;
k)) can be ensured through the choice of the MPC design parameters, see, e.g., [40], [42], and [48].
For power electronics applications controlled via MPC, establishing stability results remains, to date,
an open problem. However, there is a significant repository of tools in the control community that
merit an investigation of their applicability in power electronics applications (see [49] and [50]).

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|18

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Linear Quadratic Case

A particularly simple case of (4)–(7) arises when the system model is linear and the cost function is
quadratic, i.e.,
x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k)
V (x(k), u_x0005_ (k)) = x_x0005_ (k + N) TP x_x0005_ (k + N) + k+ N−1
=k x_x0005_ (_x0005_) TQx_x0005_ (_x0005_) + u_x0005_ (_x0005_) TRu_x0005_ (_x0005_) (16)
where A, B, P, Q, and R are given matrices of appropriate dimensions. If the system inputs and states
in (16) are unconstrained, then the moving horizon optimization of the aforementioned cost function
leads to a linear time invariant controller. This simple approach was investigated in [51] and [52] for
use in drive applications. On the other hand, if the inputs and states are constrained to belong to
polytopes, then minimizing the cost function amounts to solving a convex quadratic program. In this
case, semiexplicit solutions to the MPC optimization problem can be found. In the associated Explicit
MPC schemes, some of the computations can be carried out offline, thus alleviating online
computational burden; see [53] and [54]. Several works, including [44] and [51], have studied
constrained linear quadratic MPC in the context of power electronics and drive applications. We will
next revise the approach taken in [44].

Explicit MPC for Drive Control

The work [44] illustrates the advantages of replacing the PI current controller in the field-oriented
drive control scheme in Fig. 11 by Explicit MPC. The dynamics of an induction machine are governed
by nonlinear differential equations.

Fig. 11. Typical field-oriented control of an induction machine [44]

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|19

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Fig. 12. Experimental tracking performance of current control:

(a) With PI controllers designed according to symmetrical optimum and
(b) with model predictive controller [44].
.
To obtain a model suitable for Explicit MPC, see (16), in [44], the time-continuous machine model
was discretized, and the nonlinear cross-coupling between the stator current components isd and isq
was neglected. The state variable x(k) in (16) was chosen as
x(k)=[isd(k) isq(k)]T .
Despite the fact that the model used is only approximate, it turns out that the Explicit MPC
formulation adopted can outperform standard PI control without requiring significant additional
computation times. Fig. 12(a) and (b) shows experimental results. In this figure, i ∗ sq is the
reference of the stator current component, whereas u∗ sq refers to the stator voltage component, i.e.,
the control input, which is fed to the PWM module, see Fig. 11.

Comments
The results of [44] are certainly promising. However, we feel that MPC has significantly more to offer
than replacing individual modules within a cascaded control structure. Indeed, the main advantage of
MPC, with respect to other control approaches, lies in the possibility to control nonlinear and
constrained systems. In addition, various objectives, such as reference tracking and disturbance
compensation, can be incorporated. Thus, it is worth studying the feasibility of developing MPC
architectures which govern the entire drive control architecture without using any additional PI loops
or PWM modules. For that purpose, nonlinearities need to be taken into account, and the finite set

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|20

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

nature of switching states should be respected. In the following section, we will revise some MPC
formulations where the switches are controlled directly, without using PWM modules.

7. FS-MPS

Considering the discrete nature of power converters, it is possible to simplify the optimization
problem of MPC by avoiding the use of modulators. Taking into account the finite set of possible
switching states of the power converter, which depends on the possible combinations of the on/off
switching states of the power switches, the optimization problem is reduced to the evaluation of all
possible states and the selection of the one which minimizes the given cost function. In addition to this,
if the horizon length is set to N = 1, the calculation of the optimal actuation is very simple and easy to
implement experimentally, as will be shown later in this section.

System Model
When modeling a converter, the basic element is the power switch, which can be an insulated-gate
bipolar transistor, a thyristor, a gate turn-off thyristor, or others. The simplest model of these power
switches considers an ideal switch with only two states: on and off. Therefore, the total number of
switching states of a power converter is equal to the number of the different combinations of the two
switching states of each switch. However, some combinations are not possible, for example, those
combinations that short-circuit the dc link. Let us consider the example of an H-bridge single-phase
inverter. It has four switches; therefore, the total number of combinations is 24 = 16. However, two
switches in the same leg of the inverter cannot be on at the same time; therefore, it is usual to drive
them as complementary switches. This way, the number of possible states is reduced, and each leg has
only two states. Therefore, the number of possible states is 22 = 4. As a general rule, the number of
possible switching states can be calculated as xy, where x is the number of possible states of each leg
of the converter and y is the number of phases (or legs) of the converter. This way, a three-phase two-
level converter has 23 = 8 possible switching states, a three-phase three-level converter has 33 = 27
switching states, and a five-phase twolevel converter has 25 = 32 switching states. Some examples of
different converter topologies and their corresponding number of possible switching states are shown
in Table I. For some other converter topologies, the way of calculating the possible switching states
may be different.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|21

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Fig. 13. FS-MPC

Horizontal Length
When a horizon length N is used, the number of possible input sequences, considering the possible
switching states of the converter, can be quite large. Then, the idea of predicting the behavior of the
system for all possible switching state sequences becomes difficult to apply in a real system. A simple
solution is the use of N = 1, reducing the number of calculations to the number of possible switching
states of the converter. The block diagram of an FS-MPC considering a prediction horizon N = 1 is
shown in Fig. 13. Here, the state variables of the system x(k) are measured (or estimated) and used as
initial condition for the predictions. The n predicted values x(k + 1), corresponding to the n possible

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|22

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

switching states of the converter, are evaluated using the cost function. The switching state S which
minimizes the cost function is selected and applied.

Some Application Examples

1) Current Control: Considering a three-phase two-level inverter, the eight possible switching states
and voltage vectors are summarized in Table II. Here, variables Sa, Sb, and Sc represent the switching
states of the a, b, and c legs of the inverter.

Fig. 14. Current control of a three-phase inverter using FS-MPC: Experimental result.

A simple example of current control using FS-MPC for an inverter is shown in [55]–[58]. Here, the
following cost function is defined as:
g = _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ i ∗ α(k) −ˆiα(k + 1) _x0005_ _x0005_
_x0005_ + _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ i ∗ β(k) −ˆiβ(k + 1) _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ (17)

where i ∗ α(k) and i ∗ β(k) are the real and imaginary parts of the reference
current vector, respectively, and ˆiα(k + 1) and ˆiβ(k + 1) are the real and imaginary parts of the
predicted current vector, respectively. As shown also in [47], a discrete-time model suitable for the
prediction of the load current is
ˆi(k + 1) = 1 − RTs L _x0007_ i(k) + Ts L (v(k) −
eˆ(k)) (18)
where R and L are the load resistance and inductance, respectively, Ts is the sampling frequency, eˆ is
the estimated back EMF of the load, i(k) is the measured load current, and the inverter voltage v(k) is
the decision variable to be calculated for the control. Experimental results for the current control of a
three-phase inverter, obtained from [58], are shown in Fig. 14. A similar current control strategy has
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|23
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

been presented for three- [59], [60] and four-level [61] inverters. In [60], the possibility of including
additional terms to the cost function is proposed, adding capacitor voltage balancing and reduction of
the switching frequency. For the case of the three-phase PWM rectifier, the possible switching states
and voltage vectors generated by the inverter are the same as the ones shown in Table II for an
inverter. As well as the current can be controlled, it is also possible to control the active and reactive
powers [62]–[64]. For more complex converter topologies, the control strategy is the same but with a
different set of possible switching states. This is the case of the matrix converter, as presented in [65],
the direct converter [66]–[68], and the flying capacitor converter [69].In terms of the variables to be
controlled, depending on the converter and the application, several compositions of the cost function
have been proposed.

2) Torque and Flux Control: For the same three-phase inverter, considering an induction motor as a
load, the torque and flux of the machine can be directly controlled, as shown in [70]. An appropriate
cost function is defined as
g= _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ T∗ e (k)−Tˆ e(k+1) _x0005_ _x0005_
_x0005_+A _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_|ψs(k)| ∗ − _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ψˆs(k+1) _x0005_
_x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ (19)
where T∗ e (k) is the reference torque and Tˆ e(k + 1) is the predicted electric torque for a given
switching state, |ψs(k)| ∗ is the reference amplitude for the stator flux, and |ψˆ s(k + 1)| is the
amplitude of the predicted stator flux. The weighting factor A allows one to adjust the importance of
the flux error with respect to the torque error.
3) Power Control: For a three-phase PWM rectifier, the same possible switching states and voltage
vectors shown in Table II are valid. Here, the inductive filter model is considered for the prediction of
the input current and power of the converter. As well as a predictive current control can be used in the
rectifier, another approach for the control of this converter considers the direct control of the active
and reactive powers [64]. As proposed in [62] and [63], the cost function evaluates the error in the
active and reactive power
g = (P∗ − P(k + 1))2 + (Q(k + 1))2 (20)
where the reactive power reference is zero and the active power reference is obtained from the dc link
voltage control loop.
4) Control of NPC Converter: In a three-level three-phase inverter, the number of switching states is
27, generating 19 different voltage vectors. Here, it is possible to take advantage of the redundancy of
switching states by considering additional terms in the cost function. As proposed in [60], it is possible
to control the load currents while balancing the capacitor voltages and reducing the average switching
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|24
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

frequency by using the following cost function:

g = _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ i ∗ α −ˆiα(k + 1) _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ +
_x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ i ∗ β −ˆiβ(k + 1) _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ + A|Vdc1 − Vdc2| + Bn (21)
where Vdc1 and Vdc2 are the dc link capacitor voltages and n is the number of commutations needed
to change from the present switching state to the next switching state. The weighting factor A
represents the importance of the capacitor voltage balance, and the weighting factor B allows the
reduction of the average switching frequency.
5) Control of Matrix Converter: The control strategy proposed in [65] for the matrix converter takes
into account the 27 possible switching states of the nine bidirectional switches. The goal of the control
method is to receive only active power at the input and that the load current follows its reference with
good accuracy. These two requirements are expressed as the following cost function:
g = _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ i ∗ α −ˆiα(k + 1) _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ +
_x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ i ∗ β −ˆiβ(k + 1) _x0005_ _x0005_ _x0005_ + A |Q(k + 1)| (22)
where i ∗ α and i ∗ β are the load current references, ˆiα(k + 1) and ˆiβ(k + 1) are the predicted load
currents for a given switching state, and Q(k + 1) is the predicted reactive power at the input of the
converter.
6) Control of Direct Converter: The direct converter has six bidirectional switches which allow nine

possible switching states. The control strategies presented in [66]–[68] consider the control of the
capacitor voltages of the LC filter at the input of the converter in a cascaded control structure, in order
to obtain unity power factor and controlled amplitude of the output voltage. The cost function used in
these works for the control of the capacitor voltages is defined as
g = v∗ cap(k + 1)vcap(k + 1) 2 2 (23)
where v∗ cap(k + 1) is the reference capacitor voltage vector, obtained from the outer
input current control loop. The capacitor voltages vcap(k + 1) are predicted for each possible
switching state. 7) Control of
Flying Capacitor Converter: The application of FS-MPC to a single-phase four-level flying capacitor
converter is presented i
n [69]. This converter has three pairs of switches allowing eight possible
switching states that generate four different voltage levels. The output current and capacitor voltages
are controlled considering also the reduction of the switching frequency and control of the spectrum of
the output current. This is achieved by using the following cost function:
J[k, u] = e_x0005_ [k + N] 2 P + k+ N−1 =k e_x0005_ [_x0005_] 2 P +λ2 u_x0005_ [_x0005_ − 1
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|25
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

] − u_x0005_ [_x0005_] 2 (24) where u_x0005_ is the switch

ing state to be applied and e_x0005_ [k] is the predicted value of the overall error signal e[k], defined
as e[k] = ⎡ ⎣ V1[k] − VDC 3 V2[k] − 2VDC 3 W(ρ) iL[k] − i ref L [k] ⎤ ⎦ (25) where V1 and
V2 are the capacitor voltages and iL is the output current. The capacitor voltage references are defined
as a fraction of the dc link voltage, and the output current reference is i ref L . The filter W(ρ) allows
one to include a frequency weighting in the cost f is considered. This idea has been applied to several
other converters, and it is open for new applications.

Spectrum and Switching Frequency

In all the examples described in Section VII-C, the switching state of the converter is changed at
equidistant instants in time, i.e., in each sampling period, an optimal switching state is selected and
applied during a whole period. This way, variable switching frequency is obtained, where the
maximum switching frequency is limited to half the sampling frequency. The resulting spectrum of
the voltages and currents is spread over a wide range of frequencies and will change depending on the
sampling frequency and the operating conditions. This kind of spectrum is not desirable in some
applications. In order to get a concentrated spectrum, similar to the one obtained using PWM, a
frequency weighted cost function has been proposed in [47], where a narrowband stop filter is

included in the cost function. Some other applications may require a reduced switching frequency, in
order to reduce the switching power losses. In these cases, a weighting factor related to the
commutations can be included in the cost function, as proposed in [60] where it is demonstrated that
the average switching frequency can be considerably reduced. A different approach is the use of a
constant switching frequency, as will be explained in the next section. A comparison between the
variable and constant switching frequency algorithms is presented in [72] for the power control of an
active front-end rectifier.

Constant Switching Frequency Algorithm

In most commercial applications, the constant switching frequency algorithm is preferred because it
allows easy EMI filter design and protection of semiconductor power components. Therefore, a
constant switching frequency predictive direct power control (P-DPC) algorithm has been developed
in [73] and [74]. This algorithm selects, in every sampling period, an appropiate voltage vector
sequence and calculates duty cycles in order to minimize instantaneous active and reactive power
errors. The lack of linear controllers and modulator makes the system very fast in transients. However,
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|26
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

the P-DPC algorithm is sensitive to measured grid voltage distortion, which causes grid current
distortion. Using estimated virtual flux (VF) for instantaneous power calculation, the grid side voltage
sensors can be eliminated and sampling frequency reduced [75]. Moreover, in operations under
distorted grid voltage, the THD factor of the grid current can also be considerably reduced without
deterioration of high dynamic performance (see Fig. 15). Therefore, the VF-based P-DPC (VF-P-DPC)
algorithm is a very universal system that can be used for very low switching frequencies (below 2
kHz).

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|27

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

8. Conclusion

This paper has reviewed the most important types of predictive control used in power
electronics and drives. The predictive control methods are divided into following groups:
deadbeat control, hysteresis-based control, trajectory-based control, and continuous MPC and
FS-MPC.

Fig. 15. Experimental tracking performance of active power control for

command change from 1 to 2 kW. (Upper figure) Constant switching frequency
P-DPC with grid voltage sensors. (Lower figure) Constant
switching frequency VF-P-DPC without grid voltage sensors. (From the
top) Commanded and measured active and reactive powers.

The basic principles and the latest developments of these methods have been systematically
described, and application examples have been indicated. It is demonstrated that predictive
control is a very powerful and flexible concept for designing controllers. It presents several
advantages that make it suitable for the control of power converters and drives. The use of all
available information of the system to decide the optimal actuation allows one to achieve very
fast dynamics, by including the nonlinearities and restrictions of the system and avoiding the
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|28
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

cascaded structure. It is also possible to take advantage of the discrete nature of the power
converters and choose from the possible switching states the optimal solution according to the
minimization of a predefined cost function. Predictive control has been applied to a very wide
range of systems, and it is open for new applications and converter topologies. However, the
best suited type of predictive control will depend on the application and requirements of the
system. As a conclusion of survey, it is the belief of the authors that predictive control
strategies will continue to play a strategic role in the development of modern high-performance
power electronics and drive systems and will offer a new interesting perspective for future
research in this area.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|29

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

REFERENCES

[1] M. P. Kazmierkowski, R. Krishnan, and F. Blaabjerg, Control in Power Electronics.

New York: Academic, 2002.

[2] N. Mohan, T. M. Undeland, and W. P. Robbins, Power Electronics, 2nd ed.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 1995.

[3] A. Linder, “Modellbasierte Prädiktivregelung in Der Antriebstechnik,” Ph.D.

dissertation, Wuppertal Univ., Wuppertal, Germany, 2005.

[4] J. Holtz and S. Stadtfeld, “A predictive controller for the stator current vector of AC
machines fed from a switched voltage source,” in Proc. IPEC, Tokyo, Japan, 1983, pp.
1665–1675.

[5] A. Khambadkone and J. Holtz, “Low switching frequency and high dynamic
pulsewidth modulation based on field-orientation for high-power inverter drive,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 627–632, Oct. 1992.

[6] M. Depenbrock, “Direct Self-Control (DSC) of inverter-fed induction machine,”

IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 420–429, Oct. 1988.

[7] E. Flach, R. Hoffmann, and P. Mutschler, “Direct mean torque control of an

induction motor,” in Proc. Conf. Rec. EPE, Trondheim, Norway, 1997, vol. 3, pp. 672–
677.

[8] S. V. Emeljanov, Automatic Control Systems With Variable Structure

(Automatische Regelsysteme mit Veranderlicher Struktur). Munich, Germany: R.
Oldenbourg-Verlag, 1969.

[9] I. Takahashi and T. Noguchi, “A new quick response and high efficiency control
strategy of an induction motor,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, 1985, pp.
1665–1675.

[10] P. Mutschler, “A new speed-control method for induction motors,” in Proc. Conf.
Rec. PCIM, Nuremberg, Germany, May 1998, pp. 131–136.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|30

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

[11] O. Kukrer, “Discrete-time current control of voltage-fed three-phase PWM

inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 260–269, Mar. 1996.

[12] H. Le-Huy, K. Slimani, and P. Viarouge, “Analysis and implementation of a real-

time predictive current controller for permanent-magnet synchronous servo drives,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 110– 117, Feb. 1994.

[13] H.-T. Moon, H.-S. Kim, and M.-J. Youn, “A discrete-time predictive current
control for PMSM,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 464–472, Jan.
2003.

[14] L. Springob and J. Holtz, “High-bandwidth current control for torqueripple

compensation in PM synchronous machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 45, no. 5,
pp. 713–721, Oct. 1998.

[15] J. Chen, A. Prodic, R. W. Erickson, and D. Maksimovi ´ c, “Predictive dig- ´ ital

current programmed control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 411–419,
Jan. 2003.

[16] R. E. Betz, B. J. Cook, and S. J. Henriksen, “A digital current controller for three
phase voltage source inverters,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, New Orleans,
LA, Oct. 2003, pp. 722–729.

[17] S. J. Henriksen, R. E. Betz, and B. J. Cook, “Practical issues with predictive

current controllers,” in Proc. Australasian Univ. Power Eng. Conf., Perth WA, Australia,
2001.

[18] G. Bode, P. C. Loh, M. J. Newman, and D. G. Holmes, “An improved robust

predictive current regulation algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 41, no. 6, pp.
1720–1733, Nov. 2005.

[19] S.-M. Yang and C.-H. Lee, “A deadbeat current controller for field oriented
induction motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 772–778, Sep.
2002.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|31

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

[20] H. Abu-Rub, J. Guzinski, Z. Krzeminski, and H. A. Toliyat, “Predictive current

control of voltage source inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 585-
593, Jun. 2004.

[21] Q. Zeng and L. Chang, “An advanced SVPWM-based predictive current controller
for three-phase inverters in distributed generation systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1235–1246, Mar. 2008.

[22] L. Malesani, P. Mattavelli, and S. Buso, “Robust dead-beat current control for
PWM rectifier and active filters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 613–620,
May/Jun. 1999.

[23] Y. Nishida, O. Miyashita, T. Haneyoshi, H. Tomita, and A. Maeda, “A predictive

instantaneous-current PWM controlled rectifier with AC-side harmonic current
reduction,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 337–343, Jun. 1997.

[24] S.-G. Jeong and M.-H. Woo, “DSP-based active power filter with predictive
current control,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 329– 336, Jun. 1997.

[25] J. Mossoba and P. W. Lehn, “A controller architecture for high bandwidth active
power filters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 18, no. 1, pt. 2, pp. 317–325, Jan.
2003.

[26] W. Zhang, G. Feng, and Y.-F. Liu, “Analysis and implementation of a new PFC
digital control method,” in Proc. Conf. Rec. PESC. Acapulco, Mexico, 2003. CD-ROM.

[27] P. Mattavelli, G. Spiazzi, and P. Tenti, “Predictive digital control of power factor
preregulators,” in Proc. Conf. Rec. PESC, Acapulco, Mexico, 2003. CD-ROM.

[28] P. Mattavelli, G. Spiazzi, and P. Tenti, “Predictive digital control of power factor
preregulators with input voltage estimation using disturbance observers,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 140–147, Jan. 2005.

[29] S. Buso, S. Fasolo, and P. Mattavelli, “Uninterruptible power supply multiloop

employing digital predictive voltage and current regulators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1846–1854, Nov./Dec. 2001.

[30] P. Mattavelli, “An improved deadbeat control for UPS using disturbance
observers,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 206–212, Feb. 2005. [31] A.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|32

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Nasiri, “Digital control of three-phase series-parallel uninterruptible power supply

systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1116–1127, Jul. 2007.

[31] S. Saggini, W. Stefanutti, E. Tedeschi, and P. Mattavelli, “Digital deadbeat control

tuning for dc–dc converters using error correlation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol.
22, no. 4, pp. 1566–1570, Jul. 2007.

[32] P. Correa, M. Pacas, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive torque control for inverter-fed
induction machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1073–1079, Apr.
2007.

[33] Y. A. R. I. Mohamed and E. F. El-Saadany, “An improved deadbeat current

control scheme with a novel adaptive self-tuning load model for a threephase PWM
voltage-source inverter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 747–759, Apr.
2007.

[34] Y. A. R. I. Mohamed and E. F. El-Saadany, “Robust high bandwidth discrete-time

predictive current control with predictive internal model—A unified approach for
voltage-source PWM converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 1, pp.
126–136, Jan. 2008.

[35] Y. A. R. I. Mohamed and E. F. El-Saadany, “Adaptive discrete-time gridvoltage

sensorless interfacing scheme for grid-connected DG-inverters based on neural-network
identification and deadbeat current regulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23,
no. 1, pp. 308–321, Jan. 2008.

[36] P. Zanchetta, D. B. Gerry, V. G. Monopoli, J. C. Clare, and P. W. Wheeler,

“Predictive current control for multilevel active rectifiers with reduced switching
frequency,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 163– 172, Jan. 2008.

[37] E. F. Camacho and C. Bordons, Model Predictive Control. New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1999.

[38] J. M. Maciejowski, Predictive Control With Constraints. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, 2002.

[39] G. C. Goodwin, M. M. Serón, and J. A. De Doná, Constrained Control &

Estimation—An Optimization Perspective. London, U.K.: SpringerVerlag, 2005.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|33

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

[40] S. J. Qin and T. A. Badgwell, “A survey of industrial model predictive control

technology,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 733–764, Jul. 2003.

[41] D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, and P. O. M. Scokaert, “Constrained

model predictive control: Optimality and stability,” Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–
814, Jun. 2000.

[42] C. E. García, D. M. Prett, and M. Morari, “Model predictive control: Theory and
practice—A survey,” Automatica, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 335–348, May 1989.

[43] A. Linder and R. Kennel, “Model predictive control for electrical drives,” in Proc.
IEEE PESC, Recife, Brazil, 2005, pp. 1793–1799.

[44] B. Lehman and R. M. Bass, “Extensions of averaging theory for power electronic
systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 542– 553, Jul. 1996.

[45] S. E. Dreyfus, “Some types of optimal control of stochastic systems,” SIAM J.

Control Optim., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 120–134, Jan. 1964.

[46] P. Cortés, J. Rodríguez, D. E. Quevedo, and C. Silva, “Predictive current control

strategy with imposed load current spectrum,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no.
2, pp. 612–618, Mar. 2008.

[47] D. E. Quevedo, G. C. Goodwin, and J. A. De Doná, “Finite constraint set receding

horizon quadratic control,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 355–377,
Mar. 2004.

[48] T. Geyer, G. Papafotiou, and M. Morari, “Hybrid model predictive control of the
step-down DC–DC converter,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 16, no. 6, pp.
1112–1124, Nov. 2008.

[49] M. Baotic, F. Christophersen, and M. Morari, “Constrained optimal control of

hybrid systems with a linear performance index,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 51,
no. 12, pp. 1903–1919, Dec. 2006.

[50] K.-S. Low and X. Zhuang, “Robust model predictive control and observer for
direct drive applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1018–1028,
Nov. 2000.

[51] R. Kennel, A. Linder, and M. Linke, “Generalized Predictive Control (GPC)—

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|34
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

Ready for use in drive applications?” in Proc. IEEE PESC, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
2001, pp. 1839–1844.

[52] A. Bemporad, M. Morari, V. Dua, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “The explicit linear

quadratic regulator for constrained systems,” Automatica, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 3–20, Jan.
2002.

[53] M. Serón, G. C. Goodwin, and J. A. De Doná, “Characterisation of receding

horizon control for constrained linear systems,” Asian J. Control, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 271–
286, Jun. 2003.

[54] J. Rodríguez, J. Pontt, C. Silva, M. Salgado, S. Rees, U. Ammann, P. Lezana, R.

Huerta, and P. Cortés, “Predictive control of a three-phase inverter,” Electron. Lett., vol.
40, no. 9, pp. 561–562, Apr. 29, 2004.

[55] J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, C. Silva, P. Cortes, U. Amman, and S. Rees, “Predictive

current control of a voltage source inverter,” in Proc. IEEE 35th Annu. PESC, Jun.
2004, vol. 3, pp. 2192–2196.

[56] A. Linder and R. Kennel, “Direct model predictive control—A new direct
predictive control strategy for electrical drives,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Power Electron.
Appl., Sep. 2005. CD-ROM.

[57] J. Rodríguez, J. Pontt, C. Silva, P. Correa, P. Lezana, P. Cortés, and U. Ammann,

“Predictive current control of a voltage source inverter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol.
54, no. 1, pp. 495–503, Feb. 2007.

[58] G. Perantzakis, F. Xepapas, S. Papathanassiou, and S. N. Manias, “A predictive

current control technique for three-level NPC voltage source inverters,” in Proc. IEEE
36th PESC, Sep. 2005, pp. 1241–1246.

[59] R. Vargas, P. Cortes, U. Ammann, J. Rodriguez, and J. Pontt, “Predictive control

of a three-phase neutral-point-clamped inverter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no.
5, pp. 2697–2705, Oct. 2007.

[60] G. S. Perantzakis, F. H. Xepapas, and S. N. Manias, “Efficient predictive current

control technique for multilevel voltage source inverters,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Power
Electron. Appl., Sep. 2005. CD-ROM.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|35

Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

[61] J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, P. Correa, P. Lezana, and P. Cortes, “Predictive power

control of an AC/DC/AC converter,” in Conf. Rec. 40th IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, vol.
2, Oct. 2005, pp. 934–939.

[62] J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, P. Correa, U. Ammann, and P. Cortes, “Novel control

strategy of an AC/DC/AC converter using power relations,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Power
Electron. Intell. Control Energy Conservation, Pelincec, Warsaw, Poland, Oct. 16–19,
2005.

[63] P. Antoniewicz and M. P. Kazmierkowski, “Predictive direct power control of

three-phase boost rectifier,” Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 287–292, 2006.

[64] S. Muller, U. Ammann, and S. Rees, “New time-discrete modulation scheme for
matrix converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1607–1615, Dec.
2005.

[65] M. Catucci, J. Clare, and P. Wheeler, “Predictive control strategies for ZCS direct
converter HV power supply,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Power Electron. Appl., Sep. 2005.
CD-ROM.

[66] M. Catucci, J. Clare, and P. Wheeler, “Predictive control strategy for ZCS single
stage resonant converter,” in Proc. 32nd Annu. Conf. IEEE IECON, Nov. 2006, pp.
2905–2910.

[67] H. Q. S. Dang, P. Wheeler, and J. Clare, “A control analysis and implementation

of high voltage, high frequency direct power converter,” in Proc. 32nd Annu. Conf.
IEEE IECON, Nov. 2006, pp. 2096–2102.

[68] E. I. Silva, B. P. McGrath, D. E. Quevedo, and G. C. Goodwin, “Predictive control

of a flying capacitor converter,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., New York, Jul. 2007, pp.
3763–3768.

[69] J. Rodríguez, J. Pontt, C. Silva, P. Cortés, S. Rees, and U. Ammann, “Predictive

direct torque control of an induction machine,” in Proc. 11th Int. EPE-PEMC, Riga,
Latvia, Sep. 2–4, 2004.

[70] G. Papafotiou, T. Geyer, and M. Morari, “A hybrid model predictive control

approach to the direct control problem of induction motors,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear
Control, vol. 17, no. 17, pp. 1572–1589, 2007.
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|36
Impacts of Energy Storage on Power System

[71] P. Antoniewicz, M. P. Kazmierkowski, S. Aurtenechea, and M. A. Rodríguez,

“Comparative study of two predictive direct power control algorithms for three-phase
ac/dc converters,” in Proc. EPE Conf., Aalborg, Denmark, 2007, pp. 1–10.

[72] S. Aurtenechea, M. A. Rodríguez, E. Oyarbide, and J. R. Torrealday, “Predictive

control strategy for dc/ac converters based on direct power control,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1261–1271, Jun. 2007.

[73] S. Aurtenechea, M. A. Rodriguez, E. Oyarbide, and J. R. Torrealday, “Predictive

direct power control—A new control strategy for DC/AC converters,” in Proc. IEEE
32nd Annu. Conf. IECON, Nov. 2006, pp. 1661– 1666.

[74] P. Antoniewicz and M. P. Kazmierkowski, “Virtual flux based predictive direct

power control of ac/dc converters with on-line inductance estimation,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4381–4390, Dec. 2008.

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, SJEC Page|37