1
Fault tolerant predictive control for Six-Phase
generation systems using Multi-modular Matrix
Converter
Sergio Toledo, Member, IEEE, David Caballero, Member, IEEE, Edgar Maqueda, Silvia Arrua, Raul Gregor,
Marco Rivera Member, IEEE, and Pat Wheeler, Life Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—Multi-phase wind generation systems are emerging
as a promising technology under distributed generation frame.
This systems can present unbalanced voltages or phase faults
due several reasons. In this paper a modular three-phase direct
matrix converter topology is used as conversion stage in a six-
phase generation system to supply the desired current to a
load. To achieve a reliable performance in the conversion stage,
an improved predictive current control is proposed that take
advantage of the modularity of the converter to enhance the
behavior and to provide the capability to work continuously
even under unbalance in the source or fault operation of the
generation system achieving the desired tracking and quality
in the controlled signal. The technique is compared against a
classical approach to show the benefits of the proposal.
Index Terms—Matrix Converter, Predictive control, Multi-
phase machines, Fault tolerant control, Unbalanced source.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE increasing implementation of renewable energy
sources in recent times leads to the concept of distributed
generation as an alternative for the traditional distribution
system [1]. In this scenario, wind harvesting technology has a
big potential as a generation source with the latest advances on
multi-phase wind energy generator (MWEG) systems [2]–[4].
MWEG systems present several advantages such as the reduc-
tion of the inverter power rating per phase, increased reliability
and working time, resulting in an increase in the annual energy
yield [5], [6]. It is found in the literature that the six-phase
wind energy generator (SpWEG) is one of the most typical
topologies. It has two sets of three-phase stator windings
spatially shifted by 30 or 60 electrical degrees and isolated
neutral points [7].
Regarding the power electronic grid-connected convert-
ers (GCC), used for the interconnection of the energy sources
and the grid, there are certain specifications that they must
meet, such as the capability to achieve a desired active and
reactive power control and low voltage and current distor-
tion. Some of the topologies used for DG applications are
the active front-end (AFE), cascaded multilevel converters,
S. Toledo, D. Caballero, E. Maqueda, S. Arrua and R. Gregor
are with the Laboratory of Power Systems and Control, Uni-
versidad Nacional de Asunción, Luque, 2060 Paraguay e-mail:
[stoledo,dcaballero,emaqueda,sarrua,rgregor]@ing.una.py
S. Toledo and M. Rivera are with Department of Electrical Engineering,
Universidad de Talca, Curicó. Chile
P. Wheeler are with Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Uni-
versity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
neutral-point-clamped (NPC) topologies and modular multi-
level converters [8]–[12]. The main disadvantage found in
this topologies is the need of energy storage elements since
they present a AC-DC-AC configuration, adding weight and
volume and constituting an extra point of failure in the system.
To overcome this disadvantage, the matrix converter (MC) is
another topology that provides a flexible AC-AC interface for
DG applications. This converter allows the interconnection of
AC sources with the grid without requiring storage elements
and provides a three-phase sinusoidal voltage with variable
amplitude and frequency using fully controlled bi-directional
switches [13].
Several control techniques can be found in the literature for
grid-connected converters. Some of this techniques are pulse
width modulation (PWM), space vector modulation (SVM),
fuzzy control and model predictive control (MPC). [14]–[17].
MPC becomes an attractive control solution that has been suc-
cessfully implemented for different applications such as cur-
rent control [18], [19], voltage control [20], speed control [21],
torque control [22], steady-state error suppression [23] and
current control combining multi-phase machines and multi-
modular direct matrix converters (MMC) [24], [25], among
others.
Compared with other control techniques, MPC has the
following advantages for MC (i) it is a more direct strategy and
can reduce the complexity of the control, (ii) several control
objectives and constraints can be considered defining particular
cost functions, (iii) achieves accurate and fast behavior in
the transient and steady states and (iv) it has high controller
bandwidth [26]. Particularly, the capability of including several
new control objectives through variations in the cost function is
one of the most interesting feature of MPC and is exploited in
the proposed approach in this paper. Previous works have met
relevant international standards injecting half of the desired
current per module to achieve the desired injected current.
However, it can be noted that when multi-modular topologies
are used, a coupling signal between the parallel three-phase
MC modules can be used to improve the performance, taking
advantage of the predicted error for one module and including
this error in the reference of the second to reduce the total
error and the total harmonic distortion (THD) [27].
The main contribution of this research is a novel cost
function for MPC that includes a coupling signal between
the modules of a MMC topology for SpWEG systems and
the analysis of the performance under fault operation such as
 2

unbalances in the generation stage or faults in some phases of III. C ONTROL STRATEGY
the six-phase generator. In the following section the model of Owing its high performance in terms of dynamic behavior
the conversion stage is presented. and flexibility in the definition of control objectives, MPC is
one of the most promising control strategies and have been
II. M ODEL OF THE POWER CONVERSION SYSTEM widely used on SpWEG systems control [29]. The technique
The proposed topology is shown in Fig.1 consisting of two uses a mathematical model of the system to predict the future
three-phase MC modules connected to the SpWEG with a behavior of the controlled variables. The inherent discrete
passive (RLC) input filter and then connected to the grid by an nature of power converters simplifies the MPC algorithm in
output (L) filter. These modules are represented by the power to the prediction of the system’s behavior only for the set of
electronic circuit shown in Fig. 2. Generated voltages by the feasible switching states that are finite. This approach is called
SpWEG are indicated as ux , vx and wx where x ∈ {1, 2} finite control set MPC (FCS-MPC). In a simplified manner, the
denotes the corresponding module. Input voltages of the MC FCS-MPC operate as follows: (i) the converter is modeling as
are vixu , vixv and vixw and input currents are iixu , iixv and a discrete system, (ii) the model of the output filter is used to
iixw , respectively. The output voltages of the MC with respect predict the current for every valid state, (iii) a cost function
to the corresponding SpWEG neutral point (N1 or N2 ) are is defined which represents the desired system response and,
voxa , voxb and voxc . Moreover, output currents are ioxa , ioxb finally, (iv) the state that minimize the cost function is selected
and ioxc , respectively. Finally, the output filter voltages (i.e. to be applied in the next sampling time. Based on this four
the connected to the grid or load side) are vga , vgb and vgc . steps, a technique using an independent MPC for each module
Each MC is composed of nine bidirectional switches, which will be compared again a coupled MPC proposal in order to
can generate 27 feasible switching states [28]. If the three- control the current provided by a six-phase generator. Then,
phase vectors of voltages and currents are defined as: the first step in the implementation implies to obtain a model
of the system. In this case, the discrete model is derived from
      the continuous time linear system of the output filter and the
vixu voxa vga (α − β) transform defined in [30] as:
vix =  vixv  , vox =  voxb  , vg =  vgb  ,
vixw voxc vgc 2
(1) yα = (ya − 0.5yb − 0.5yc ) ,
3
    √ √ !
iixu ioxa 2 3 3
yβ = yb − yc . (7)
iix =  iixv  , iox =  ioxb  , (2) 3 2 2
iixw ioxc
Using the forward Euler discretization of (6) the predicted
then the following vectorial equations relate the input and output current is:
output voltages and currents through the switching states of
the MC:  
Rf o Ts Ts
iox (k + 1) = 1 − iox (k) + (vox (k) − vg (k)) ,
Lf o Lf o
vox = S · vix , iix = ST · iox , (3) (8)
where Ts is the sampling time, iox (k) and vg (k) are measured,
where S is the instantaneous transfer matrix, defined as: and vox (k) is calculated for all switching combinations to
  predict the next value of the output currents and evaluate the
Sua Sub Suc cost function in order to select the optimum solution.
S =  Sva Svb Svc  , (4) The main target in this case consists in control every output
Swa Swb Swc current (iLx ) and given that the desired current is the sum
and Sxy ∈ {0, 1} represents the state of the corresponding of every module currents, the reference for each module are
switch. defined as half of the desired supplied current as:
In order to avoid short circuits on the input side and ensure i∗g
an uninterrupted current flow on the load side, the switching i∗ox = , (9)
signals Sxy must satisfy the following condition: 2
where i∗ox represents the desired supplied current by the x
Suy + Svy + Swy = 1. y ∈ {a, b, c}. (5) module and i∗g the reference current that is required to be
supplied to the load or grid side.
The dynamic model of the passive output filter is defined Using equation (7) it is possible to determine the currents
as: in (α − β) sub-space reducing computations solving only two
equations (i.e. α − β components) instead of three (i.e. every
diox phase of a three-phase system). Thereafter, for each feasible
vox − vg = Lf o + Rf o iox , (6)
dt switching vectors the corresponding cost function is evaluated.
where Rf o and Lf o are the output filter leakage resistance and In the first case, every module is considered as an inde-
inductance, respectively. pendent source injecting half of the desired total current and
 3

Module 1

Grid
or
Load

Module 2

Model Based
Predictive Control

Fig. 1. Proposed control scheme for SpWEG.

MC TABLE I
E LECTRICAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE TOPOLOGY.

Electrical parameters
Description Symbol Value Unit

Generator phase peak voltage Vs 510 V

Generator frequency fs 70 Hz
Input filter damping resistance Rp 56 Ω
Input filter capacitance Cf 47 µF
Input filter inductance Lf 10 mH
Input filter leakage resistance Rf 0.01 Ω
Output filter leakage resistance Rf o 0.3 Ω
Output filter inductance Lf o 10 mH
Load resistance R 1.0 Ω

the first part of eq. (10) is the same to determine the optimal
vector for module 1. Once the vector to be applied in module 1
is determined, it is possible to predict the future error as:
Fig. 2. Topology of the direct matrix converter module with filters.

epα = i∗o1α − iopt

o1α ,

is denominated decoupled control. This control is carried out epβ = i∗o1β − iopt
o1β , (11)
using the following cost function:
been io1αopt and io1βopt the predicted output currents in α−β
frame applying the optimal chosen vector for module 1. In this
2
2
g1 = (i∗o1α − io1α ) + i∗o1β − io1β , way, the cost functions are defined as follows:
2
2
g2 = (i∗o2α − io2α ) + i∗o2β − io2β . (10)
2
2
g1 = (i∗o1α − io1α ) + i∗o1β − io1β ,
where i∗o1α , i∗o2α , i∗o1β
and i∗o2β
denote the reference currents in 2
2
α−β and io1α , io2α , io1β and io2β correspond to the predicted g2 = (i∗o2α − io2α + epα ) + i∗o2β − io2β + epβ (,12)
currents in α − β, respectively. From the evaluation of all the Applying these cost functions inside the predictive control
possible vectors, the algorithm selects the optimal switching frame, in the next section a comparison among the decoupled
combination to be applied at the next sampling time. control and the coupled control are presented in terms of
In the second case, denominated coupled control, the pro- performance under fault operation to show how the proposal
posal consist of take advantage of the fact that the predicted provides the fault tolerant capability to the generation system.
error in module 1 can be known given that the optimal
switching vector for the first module can be determined before
the calculation of the corresponding for module 2. Then the IV. S YSTEM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
predicted error could be introduced in the cost function of In this section, a comparison between the decoupled ap-
the second module as a coupling signal, achieving an error proach, considering not coupling signals among the modules,
reduction in the total current that is the sum of both. Thereby, and the proposal improvement using a coupling signals is
 4

Current [A]
20
20
0
-20 0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 -20 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [s]
0.096 0.098 0.1 0.102 0.104
Current [A]

20
0
-20

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [s]
Current [A]

20
0
-20

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [s]

Fig. 3. Supplied three-phase current for an amplitude step. Fig. 5. System behavior under unbalanced source. Top: Input voltages, Center:
Output current of module 1, Bottom: Output current of module 2

20 20
Current [A]

20 20
10

Current [A]
0
10
0 0
-20 0
-10
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 -20
-10
Time [s] -20 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
0.096 0.098 0.1 0.102 0.104 Time [s] -20
20
0.096 0.098 0.1 0.102 0.104
Current [A]

20
Current [A]

0
0
-20
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 -20
Time [s] 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [s]
20
Current [A]

20
Current [A]

0
0
-20
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 -20
Time [s] 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [s]

Fig. 4. Supplied three-phase current for a frequency step.

Fig. 6. Output currents under unbalanced source

carried out. The considered generator is a SpWEG based on

the output currents of the conversion stage are depicted. It is
a six-phase squirrel cage induction machine that can generate
possible to note here that the unbalance on the source do not
sinusoidal voltages with a peak of 510 volts with a frequency
have an significant effect in the scheme behaviour. In this case
of 70 Hz.
the study was made for the proposal and for the decoupled
At first, in order to show the operation of the proposed
control. The THD for the decoupled control is 1.57 and for
coupled control, Fig.3 and 4 present the behavior of the
the proposal is 1.27. Both techniques accomplish with the
proposal for variations on the reference for an amplitude step
international standards for this application with a smaller THD
and a frequency step, respectively. In these figures is possible
for the proposal [31]. Regarding the MSE, considering the
to see the correct tracking of the reference in both cases with a
three phases the values for the decoupled control are 0.0757,
transient response of around 1 ms. Next, a comparison against
0.0807 and 0.070 and for the proposal 0.0568, 0.0510 and
the decoupled approach is made in terms of mean square
0.0498. In this case again the proposal shows a better value in
error (MSE) and total harmonic distortion (THD) for normal
terms of the error under unbalanced source voltages. Finally
and fault operation considering two cases, unbalanced source
it is important to note that the unbalanced source is not a big
voltages and lost of a three-phase sub-module.
trouble for both decoupled and coupled techniques and they
can manage this issue providing a suitable output current to
V. U NBALANCED SOURCE OPERATION the load.
The signals under unbalanced generator voltages can be
seen in two figures. Fig. 5 depicts the unbalanced six-phase VI. B EHAVIOR UNDER FAULTS IN THE GENERATOR
asymmetric generator voltages at the top, in the center and In this section the analysis of the behavior of the sys-
bottom the output current of every module are shown. In Fig. 6 tem under source faults are presented. The performance is
 5

Fig. 7. Input voltage and modules output current response under fault for the
decoupled technique Fig. 8. Input voltage and modules output current response under fault for the
coupled technique

compared again the decoupled control in the same terms

considered before. Fig. 7 shows the response of the modules
current under a fault in the three-phase winding connected 20

to module 1 at 0.1 seconds. The output current of module Current [A] 0

1 (io1 ) can hold the tracking for approximately 0.05 seconds -20
due the charge of the capacitors in the input filter but then the 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [s]
current supplied by this module goes to zero. As there is not
20
a coupling between stages, module 2 continues supplying half
Current [A]

of the desired current (i∗o2 = 0.5i∗g ) resulting in a big error at 0

the output current ig . Fig 8 shows the signal for the coupled -20
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
proposal, here can be note that at the moment of io1 decreases, Time [s]
io2 increases its value such a way to hold the output current 20
Current [A]

at the desired value. The resulting three-phase output currents 0

are shown in figures 9, for the decoupled technique, and 10
-20
for the coupled proposal. It can be note that for the decoupled 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

technique the tracking is not achieved due to the absence of Time [s]

the part of current from the module 1. In the coupled approach

instead, the tracking is still achieved and the desired current Fig. 9. Output currents under fault for the decoupled technique
is obtained at the output since the module 2 provides the
required current to achieve that and the THD in this case is
1.47. The MSE for every phase are 0.1388, 0.1194 and 0.1554,
respectively. About mentioned results means that the proposed 20
Current [A]

coupled cost function in the predictive control allows to react 0

against faults in the generator side providing a more robust
-20
control scheme for supplying current to a load. 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [s]

VII. C ONCLUSION 20
Current [A]

0
In this paper an improvement at the classical predictive
control have been presented. The proposal consist of including -20
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
a coupling term in the cost function of the predictive current Time [s]
control applied to a multi-modular direct matrix converter 20
Current [A]

topology for a six-phase generation system. This coupling 0

signal allows to avoid tracking errors during generator un-
-20
balances and faults holding the quality of the controlled 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
signal. Compared with a classical approach that considers Time [s]

every module as an independent three-phases sub-stage, the

proposal shows an improvement in the THD and the MSE Fig. 10. Output currents under fault for the coupled technique
both in normal operation as in fault operation. The decoupled

approach is not capable to follow the desired output in case
of fault in the generation stage as the coupled proposal does.
The control proposed here is possible due to the modular
configuration of the converter that allows to make that one
module to correct the another error through predicting the
error and including it in the cost function. The behaviour of
the system was satisfying under unbalanced source situation
and in fault operation on the generation stage accomplishing
with all the international standards for this application.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors express their gratitude to Consejo Nacional
de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a de Paraguay (CONACYT), for the
support and financing through Project PINV15-0584, to CO-
NICYT of Chile through the FONDECYT Regular Project
1160690, Project MEC 80150056 and the grant CONICYT-
PFCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2019-21192003.
R EFERENCES
[1] V. Smil, “Distributed generation and megacities: Are renewables the
answer?” IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 37–41,
March 2019.
[2] S. D. Ahmed, F. S. M. Al-Ismail, M. Shafiullah, F. A. Al-Sulaiman, and
I. M. El-Amin, “Grid integration challenges of wind energy: A review,”
IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 10 857–10 878, 2020.
[3] S. Toledo, M. Rivera, and J. L. Elizondo, “Overview of wind energy
conversion systems development, technologies and power electronics
research trends,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Automatica
(ICA-ACCA), Oct 2016, pp. 1–6.
[4] M. J. Duran and F. Barrero, “Recent advances in the design, modeling,
and control of multiphase machines: Part II,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 459–468, 2016.
[5] K. Chinmaya and G. K. Singh, “Performance evaluation of multiphase
induction generator in stand-alone and grid-connected wind energy
conversion system,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 12, no. 7,
pp. 823–831, 2018.
[6] Z. Liu, Y. Li, and Z. Zheng, “A review of drive techniques for multiphase
machines,” CES Transactions on Electrical Machines and Systems,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 243–251, 2018.
[7] F. Barrero and M. J. Duran, “Recent advances in the design, modeling,
and control of multiphase machines: Part I,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 449–458, 2016.
[8] M. Priya, P. Ponnambalam, and K. Muralikumar, “Modular-multilevel
converter topologies and applications – a review,” IET Power Electronics,
vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 170–183, 2019.
[9] N. Salgado-Herrera, D. Campos-Gaona, O. Anaya-Lara, A. Medina-
Rios, R. Tapia-Sánchez, and J. Rodrı́guez-Rodrı́guez, “Thd reduction
in wind energy system using type-4 wind turbine/pmsg applying the
active front-end converter parallel operation,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 9,
2018, cited By 5.
[10] P. Bakas, L. Harnefors, S. Norrga, A. Nami, K. Ilves, F. Dijkhuizen, and
H. Nee, “A review of hybrid topologies combining line-commutated
and cascaded full-bridge converters,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 7435–7448, 2017.
[11] Z. Feng, X. Zhang, J. Wang, and S. Yu, “A high-efficiency
three-level anpc inverter based on hybrid sic and si devices,”
Energies, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 1159, Mar 2020. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13051159
[12] J. Li, G. Konstantinou, H. R. Wickramasinghe, and J. Pou, “Operation
and control methods of modular multilevel converters in unbalanced ac
grids: A review,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in
Power Electronics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1258–1271, 2019.
[13] J. Zhang, L. Li, and D. G. Dorrell, “Control and applications of direct
matrix converters: A review,” Chinese Journal of Electrical Engineering,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 18–27, June 2018.
[14] J. A. Riveros, J. Prieto, M. Rivera, S. Toledo, and R. Gregor, “A
generalised multifrequency pwm strategy for dual three-phase voltage
source converters,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 7, 2019. [Online]. Available:
www.scopus.com
6
[15] T. Dragicevic, C. Zheng, J. Rodriguez, and F. Blaabjerg, “Robust quasi-
predictive control of lcl-filtered grid converters,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2019.
[16] M. Rivera, S. Toledo, L. Tarisciotti, P. W. Wheeler, and H. Dan,
“Predictive control strategies operating at fixed switching frequency for
input filter resonance mitigation in an indirect matrix converter,” IEEE
Latin America Transactions, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 2370–2376, 2018.
[17] H. Li, K. Ren, S. Li, and H. Dong, “Adaptive multi-model switching
predictive active power control scheme for wind generator system,”
Energies, vol. 13, no. 6, p. 1329, Mar 2020. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13061329
[18] G. F. Gontijo, T. C. Tricarico, B. W. França, L. F. da Silva, E. L. van
Emmerik, and M. Aredes, “Robust model predictive rotor current control
of a dfig connected to a distorted and unbalanced grid driven by a direct
matrix converter,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 1380–1392, 2019.
[19] M. Vijayagopal, C. Silva, L. Empringham, and L. de Lillo, “Direct
predictive current-error vector control for a direct matrix converter,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 1925–1935,
2019.
[20] J. Zhang, L. Li, D. G. Dorrell, M. Norambuena, and J. Rodriguez,
“Predictive voltage control of direct matrix converters with improved
output voltage for renewable distributed generation,” IEEE Journal of
Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp.
296–308, 2019.
[21] A. Formentini, A. Trentin, M. Marchesoni, P. Zanchetta, and P. Wheeler,
“Speed finite control set model predictive control of a pmsm fed by
matrix converter,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62,
no. 11, pp. 6786–6796, 2015.
[22] M. Siami, M. Amiri, H. K. Savadkoohi, R. Rezavandi, and S. Valipour,
“Simplified predictive torque control for a pmsm drive fed by a matrix
converter with imposed input current,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and
Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1641–1649, 2018.
[23] J. Lei, S. Feng, P. Wheeler, B. Zhou, and J. Zhao, “Steady-state error
suppression and simplified implementation of direct source current
control for matrix converter with model predictive control,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 3183–3194, 2020.
[24] S. Toledo, M. Rivera, R. Gregor, J. Rodas, and L. Comparatore, “Pre-
dictive current control with reactive power minimization in six-phase
wind energy generator using multi-modular direct matrix converter,” in
2016 IEEE ANDESCON, Oct 2016, pp. 1–4.
[25] S. Toledo, R. Gregor, M. Rivera, J. Rodas, D. Gregor, D. Caballero,
F. Gavilán, and E. Maqueda, “Multi-modular matrix converter topology
applied to distributed generation systems,” in 8th IET International
Conference on Power Electronics, Machines and Drives (PEMD 2016),
April 2016, pp. 1–6.
[26] M. Khosravi, M. Amirbande, D. A. Khaburi, M. Rivera, J. Riveros,
J. Rodriguez, A. Vahedi, and P. Wheeler, “Review of model predictive
control strategies for matrix converters,” IET Power Electronics, vol. 12,
no. 12, pp. 3021–3032, 2019.
[27] S. Toledo, E. Maqueda, M. Rivera, R. Gregor, P. Wheeler, and
C. Romero, “Improved predictive control in multi-modular matrix
converter for six-phase generation systems,” Energies, vol. 13,
no. 10, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-
1073/13/10/2660
[28] G. Gontijo, M. Soares, T. Tricarico, R. Dias, M. Aredes, and J. Guerrero,
“Direct matrix converter topologies with model predictive current control
applied as power interfaces in ac, dc, and hybrid microgrids in islanded
and grid-connected modes,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 17, p. 3302, Aug
2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en12173302
[29] P. Gonçalves, S. Cruz, and A. Mendes, “Finite control set model
predictive control of six-phase asymmetrical machines—an overview,”
Energies, vol. 12, no. 24, p. 4693, Dec 2019. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en12244693
[30] C. J. O’Rourke, M. M. Qasim, M. R. Overlin, and J. L. Kirtley, “A
geometric interpretation of reference frames and transformations: dq0,
clarke, and park,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 34,
no. 4, pp. 2070–2083, 2019.
[31] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “IEEE recommended
practice and requirements for harmonic control in electric power sys-
tems,” IEEE Std 519-2014 (Revision of IEEE Std 519-1992), pp. 1–29,
2014.