Power quality enhancement of single phase grid tied inverters with model predictive

current controller
Aditi Chatterjee, Kanungobarada Mohanty, Vinaya Sagar Kommukuri, and Kishor Thakre

Citation: J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4973714

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4973714
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/rse/9/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

MPPT control of wind turbines by direct adaptive fuzzy-PI controller and using ANN-PSO wind speed estimator
J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 013302013302 (2017); 10.1063/1.4973447

Hybrid dynamic economic emission dispatch of thermal, wind, and photovoltaic power using the hybrid
backtracking search algorithm with sequential quadratic programming
J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015502015502 (2017); 10.1063/1.4973715

Dynamic equivalent modeling of wind farm considering the uncertainty of wind power prediction and a case
study
J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 013301013301 (2017); 10.1063/1.4973445

Economically efficient and environment friendly energy management in rural area

J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015501015501 (2017); 10.1063/1.4973713
 JOURNAL OF RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY 9, 015301 (2017)

Power quality enhancement of single phase grid tied

inverters with model predictive current controller
Aditi Chatterjee, Kanungobarada Mohanty, Vinaya Sagar Kommukuri, and
Kishor Thakre
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India
(Received 7 October 2016; accepted 23 December 2016; published online 5 January 2017)

Recognition of renewable energy sources as alternative sources for power

generation has augmented the number of distributed generation plants being
incorporated into the conventional power distribution system. The single phase
voltage source inverter allying the distributed generation plant with the grid has to
address various issues related to the quality of current injected into the grid, output
power factor, and power exchange between the plant and the grid. This paper
focuses on the analysis, design, and implementation of a digital predictive current
control technique known as model predictive current controller for the control of
single phase power inverter integrating renewable energy based plant with the grid.
The proposed controller is tested in diverse operating conditions and is compared
with the existing proportional resonant current control scheme. The simulation and
experimental results validate the efficacy of the proposed control technique.
Published by AIP Publishing. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4973714]

I. INTRODUCTION
In this era of globalization, modernization, and industrialization, the chief concerns are
environmental pollution and population explosion. The ever increasing population is putting a
great pressure on energy resources. The conventional power plants, reliant on fossil fuel
reserves, are not enough to meet the electricity demand because of the exhaustion of these
reserves. Moreover, the fossil fuel-based power plants contaminate the environment with the
emission of toxic gasses and residues. To overcome these tribulations, renewable energy resour-
ces (RES) have been accepted as alternative power generation sources. To meet the growing
electricity demand distributed generation (DG) plants based on RES are integrated into power
distribution system.
The form of generated power from these plants is not attuned to the conventional distribu-
tion system. To alter the generated power into the required form, power electronic converters
(PEC) are essential.1 Single phase distribution system mostly serves residential areas and the
DG plants are installed there. A single phase voltage source inverter (VSI) is used to interface
DG plant with DC power output such as solar power plants or fuel cells based plants with the
grid. Photovoltaic (PV) based DG plants are gaining importance. Although the installation cost
is high, the maintenance cost is low. Researchers have proposed different inverter topologies
for integrating PV based DG with the grid.2–4 The PEC interfacing the DG plant with grid
gives rise to various power quality issues such as harmonic contamination in the current
injected into the grid, grid synchronization, and low output power factor.5,6 The control of these
PEC is crucial to meet the standards set for grid interconnection of DG plants. Utility interac-
tive PEC must satisfy standards such as IEEE 1547 and IEC 61727.6
Generally, two controllers are employed for control of RES based power plants. One is the
input side MPPT controller which takes into account the dynamics of the renewable and the
other one is the grid side controller.6 The grid side controller performs multiple tasks such as
control of real and reactive power trade between DG source and grid, injecting current free
from harmonic pollution into the grid and grid synchronization. The prime concern of this

1941-7012/2017/9(1)/015301/17/$30.00 9, 015301-1 Published by AIP Publishing.

015301-2 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

research work is only the grid side controller, which focuses on the quality of current waveform
injected into the grid and power exchange between the grid and RES based power plants.
To accomplish this task, researchers have proposed various grid side current control strate-
gies.7,8 The current controller mitigates the inverter output current harmonics thereby reducing
the total harmonic distortion (THD). The controller also regulates the power exchange between
the DG plant and grid and also performs reactive power compensation. It also strives to achieve
high output power factor. Various current control strategies have been projected and imple-
mented for single phase grid-tied VSI out of which the significant ones are current hysteresis
control (CHC),11,12 proportional integral (PI) control,13,14 proportional-resonant (PR) control,15–19
and dead beat control (DBC).20
The current controllers can be broadly classified as linear and nonlinear controllers.6,7
Among the nonlinear controllers, CHC is the most common strategy and is implemented in
natural reference frame. CHC is easy to implement, but it suffers from inconsistent switching
frequency and higher switching losses. This limits its application to lower power range.
Among the linear controllers, PI controllers are conventional ones that are implemented in
synchronous reference frame. It can achieve fast dynamic response. The design of PI control-
ler turns out to be a tedious task for single phase systems as it involves reference frame trans-
formation of control variables. Moreover, two PI controllers are required, one for active and
the other for reactive power control. It has been reported in literature that the PI controller
fails to achieve perfect sinusoidal reference current tracking due to non-zero steady state
error.14 On the other hand, the PR controller is a relatively new breed of linear current controller
designed in stationary reference frame. Many researchers have successfully implemented PR con-
troller for single phase grid tied VSI. The PR controller introduces a very high gain at grid fre-
quency thereby eliminating steady-state error. Hence, the current injected by VSI into the grid is
perfectly sinusoidal.16 It also has the provision of selective harmonic mitigation by cascading har-
monic compensators (HCs) along with the original current controller.19 The controller can achieve
good steady state response but its transient response is poor and it is prone to instability with
change in system parameters. The dead-beat current control strategy is effective in achieving fast
dynamic response with simpler design.20 The lacuna of this strategy lies in its sensitivity to system
parameters like sampling frequency and filter inductance.
Hence, in this paper a model predictive current controller (MPCC) is introduced for single
phase grid tied VSI which can perform well in both steady state and transient state operations.
The present work also demonstrates the hardware implementation of the digital MPCC using
low cost digital signal processor (DSP). A 1 kW single phase grid connected VSI is modelled
and simulated. The simulation results obtained with the proposed control strategy is compared
with the linear PR current control (PRCC) scheme. The experimental implementation of the
proposed strategy validates the simulation results.

II. SINGLE PHASE GRID TIED DG BASED INVERTER SYSTEM

A. System modelling
The single phase VSI shown in Fig. 1 consists of four insulated gate bipolar transistor
(IGBT) arranged in H-bridge configuration. The VSI is connected to the grid through a line
inductor L with an internal resistance R. The purpose of the inverter is to transmit the power
generated by the DG plant to the grid,

dio
vo ¼ Rio þ L þ vg ; (1)
dt

where v0 is the output voltage of the inverter, vg is the grid voltage, and i0 is the inverter output
current. For grid tied VSI, the grid voltage is sinusoidal with invariable frequency and ampli-
tude. The design procedure for filter is detailed in Ref. 9. Taking the Laplace transform of (1),
the transfer function of the plant can be expressed as in (2),
015301-3 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of single phase grid-tied IGBT based H-bridge inverter.

i o ðsÞ 1
¼ : (2)
vo ðsÞ  vg ðsÞ R þ Ls

Hence, the inverter model can be expressed as a first-order system.

B. Control system structure

The objective of the control system is to regulate the output current of the inverter that is
injected into the grid and also administer the power exchange between DG plant and grid.

1. Generation of orthogonal signal

In single phase system, only a solitary signal is available. For designing and implementing,
a controller for single phase circuits, two signals orthogonal to each other is necessary. One to
control the active and the other to control the reactive power trade between the DG plant and
the grid. Hence, a fictitious signal orthogonal to the original single phase signal has to be cre-
ated. Several methods have been proposed in literature to meet this requirement. In this work,
the fictitious signal is generated by delaying the original signal by a quarter of the fundamental
period.10 This method is selected for its simplicity and ease of implementation and absence of
any tuning parameters.

2. Generation of reference current

The block diagram in Fig. 1 shows that the signal vga is in phase with the original grid
voltage. The fictitious signal, vgb , created by introducing delay unit is orthogonal to vga . Both
of these signals are in stationary (a-b) reference frame and transformed to synchronous (d-q)
reference frame by utilizing the knowledge of phase angle of grid voltage obtained from the
phase locked loop (PLL) unit. The transformation from a-b frame to d-q frame is performed
using (3) and (4),

vgd ¼ vga sin xt  vgb cos xt; (3)

vgq ¼ vga cos xt þ vgb sin xt: (4)

Using the voltage signals in synchronous reference frame and the reference power signals,
the reference currents in d-q frame can be calculated by
015301-4 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

!   
iref 2 vgd vgq Pref
d ¼  : (5)
iref
q 2
vgd þ v2gq vgq vgd Qref

Here, Pref and Qref are the active and reactive power references. The calculated d-q refer-
ence current iref ref
d and iq controls the active and reactive powers of the system, respectively. A
reference current synchronized with the grid voltage is generated using the calculated reference
current in the d-q frame without converting it back to stationary frame. The synchronized refer-
ence current is given by

iref ¼ iref ref

d sin xt  iq cos xt: (6)

The error between the desired reference current and measured current is fed to the current
controller. In the following section (Section III), the proposed MPCC scheme is discussed in
detail and compared with the PR control approach.

III. CURRENT CONTROLLERS DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

A. Proportional resonant current control
The PR current controller (PRCC) has gained ample recognition in recent years for single
phase grid tied RES based DG plants.16–19 It is a linear control technique where the current
control operation gets exhibited in the stationary reference frame, and the coordinate transfor-
mation can be eliminated.15 The block diagram of current controller is shown in Fig. 2.
The synchronized reference current generated by (6) is compared with the measured
inverter output current. The output of the controller is the reference voltage signal for the pulse
width modulation (PWM) modulator. Unipolar sinusoidal PWM (SPWM) technique is used to
generate pulses for the IGBTs. The transfer function of an ideal PR compensator is given by16

2ki s
Gipr ðsÞ ¼ kp þ : (7)
s2 þ x 2

Here, kp is the proportional gain and ki is the integral gain for the resonant term, which
acts as an integrator for the sinusoidal signal and x is the grid frequency. From the frequency
response of ideal PR compensator, it is observed that the gain becomes interminably high at the
resonant frequency and much lower at other frequencies.19 Hence, a damping factor is intro-
duced to diminish the gain and enhances the bandwidth of the controller. The transfer function
of non-ideal PR compensator with the damping term is mentioned by18

2ki xc s
Gnpr ðsÞ ¼ kp þ : (8)
s2 þ 2xc s þ x2

From the block diagram in Fig. 2, the output of the current control loop can be written as in

io ðsÞ ¼ Hpi ðsÞiref ðsÞ þ Hpv ðsÞvg ðsÞ; (9)

FIG. 2. Block diagram of the current controller.

015301-5 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

where Hpi and Hpv are given by (10) and (11), respectively,

Gnpr ðsÞGf ðsÞ

Hpi ðsÞ ¼ ; (10)
Gnpr ðsÞGf ðsÞ þ 1

G f ðsÞ
Hpv ðsÞ ¼ ; (11)
1 þ Gnpr ðsÞGf ðsÞ

where Gnpr(s) and Gf(s) are the transfer functions of current controller and plant, respectively,
where Gnpr(s) is given by (8) and Gf(s) is given by

1
G f ðsÞ ¼ : (12)
R þ Ls

To obtain zero steady state error and track the reference current signal iref(s) effectively,
the PR controller introduces a very high gain; hence, Gnpr(jx) value is very high at fundamental
frequency. The magnitude of Hpi (jx) and Hpv (jx) approaches unity and zero at the same fre-
quency. So, the grid voltage feed forward in the current loop can be detached. The current loop
equation can be given in (13). The closed loop transfer function of current control loop is given
in (14)

io ðsÞ ¼ Hpi ðsÞiref ðsÞ; (13)

io ðsÞ s2 kp þ ð2xc kp þ 2ki xc Þs þ kp x2

¼ 3   : (14)
iref ðsÞ s L þ ðkp þ R þ 2xc LÞs2 þ 2xc kp þ 2ki xc þ 2xc R þ x2 L s þ ðkp þ RÞx2

The performance of the controller depends on three parameters kp, ki, and xc which is the
damping speed. For tuning these parameters, a frequency response analysis is performed. To
study the effect of each parameter on the controller performance, one of the three parameters is
varied keeping the other two fixed.
From the corresponding bode plots shown in Fig. 3 it is observed that the value of integral
gain does not affect the phase plot but it has a notable effect on the magnitude plot. The magni-
tude of controller enhances with the increase in the value of ki. Both magnitude and phase of
the controller are affected by variation of xc. The increment in the value of xc reflects an
increase in magnitude and phase but at the same resonant frequency. The gain magnitude of PR
controller increases with an increase in the kp value. On the other hand, the phase magnitude
decreases with the increment in the value of kp.
By studying the frequency response plots, an appropriate value for the controller parameter
is selected to obtain the desired response. The corresponding value of kp, ki, and xc used for
simulation are 20, 1000, and 10 rad/s, respectively.
To ensure the stability of the PRCC with the calculated parameters, bode plot analysis is
performed. The chief benefit of bode plot lies in the fact that closed loop stability of the system
can be evaluated with the open loop data. The closed loop gain of the current control loop with
the PR controller is given by

GðsÞ ¼ Gnpr ðsÞGf ðsÞ: (15)

From the bode plot of G(s) in Fig. 3, it can be observed that the gain margin (GM) is infinite
and phase margin (PM) is 88.9 . It reveals the fact that since the PM is positively large, the
system is stable; and due to infinite GM, if the gain of the system is further increased the PM
may decrease, but it will always remain positive. However, the phase plot never crosses 180
margin. Hence, the controller designed for the system is stable.
Since the controller is designed in continuous time domain, the closed loop transfer func-
tion has to be discretized for experimental implementation on the digital platform.
015301-6 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

FIG. 3. Bode diagrams for the PR controller.

B. Model predictive control theory

The development of the model predictive control (MPC) scheme dates back to late seven-
ties when it was first applied in chemical process industries. The term MPC does not describe a
specific control technique but it includes a wide range of control methods and implementation.
The application of MPC strategy in the area of electrical drives and PEC is more recent.21–26
The MPC application for the control of power converter takes into account its discrete nature.
The discretized system model is used to predict the future values of states of the system, which
has to be controlled until a time horizon. A cost function is used to optimize the error between
the reference and predicted values of states in order to obtain the desired output.
Since MPC is not a unique control strategy, it includes an extensive family of controllers.
The basic working principle of this control methodology can be described by the following fun-
damental steps.
• A model of the system to be controlled is first obtained by considering the system dynamics.
• The model of the system is used to forecast the future values of system states until a time
horizon.
• A cost function is used to optimize the error between the desired and forecasted output. The
cost function optimization can be on-line or off-line depending upon the system and the type of
control method opted.
A discrete time model of the system in state space form can be represented by (16)–(17)

xðk þ 1Þ ¼ Ad xðkÞ þ Bd uðkÞ; (16)

yðkÞ ¼ Cd xðkÞ þ Dd uðkÞ: (17)

In which, k 2 I  0. Here, k denotes the sampling instant and I  0 is a set of non-negative inte-
gers. A cost function is defined to represent the desired characteristic of the system. The cost
function consists of references, predicted value of states, and also future actuations as given by

g ¼ f ðxðkÞ; uðkÞ; uðk þ 1Þ:::; uðk þ PÞÞ: (18)

015301-7 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

MPC strategy aims to minimize the cost function g, for a predefined horizon in time P,
considering the model of the system and its constraints. The approach for solving the optimisa-
tion problem is also termed as receding horizon strategy. The details of receding horizon opti-
misation is illustrated in Fig. 4.
• At sampling instant k, with available measurements of states, the values of the manipulated var-
iables u, at the next sampling instant C, {u(k), u(k þ 1), u(k þ C-1)}, are calculated. The set of
“C” control moves is calculated so as to minimize the forecasted deviations from the reference
target over the next P sampling instants, while considering the system restrictions. Where P is
the prediction horizon, which defines the lower and upper limits of the time horizon in the
future over which the controller tries to induce a desired response to the plant outputs and C is
the control horizon.
• The first control move, u(k), is applied.
• At the next sampling instant (k þ 1), the C step control policy is re-calculated for the next C
sampling instants, i.e., from (k þ 1) to (k þ C) and the first control move u(k þ 1) is
implemented.
• The entire procedure is repeated again for each sampling instant considering the new control
move.
Most of the power converters are non-linear systems with high switching frequency.
Hence, by taking into account the discrete nature of power converters, the optimization problem
can be solved online. Although the computation burden is expected to be more, it is possible to
lessen it by considering finite number of switching states of the converter. With the develop-
ment of high computational speed microprocessors, the real time online optimization of MPC is
quite easy and flexible. In the next subsection (Sec. III C), the MPC scheme is proposed and
implemented for current control of single phase grid connected VSI.

C. Proposed model predictive current control

The real time implementation of MPC scheme for current control of single phase grid-tied
VSI integrating RES based DG plants has not yet been explored. In this section, the MPC strat-
egy has been applied to control the current injected by VSI into the single phase grid to
improve the power quality and termed as model predictive current controller (MPCC). The total
harmonic distortion (THD) has been taken as the performance index of the controller in steady
state. The performance of MPCC is also evaluated during transient conditions like change in
reactive power demand and grid voltage distortions.

FIG. 4. Receding horizon optimization strategy.

015301-8 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

The proposed MPCC uses a discretized model of the system to predict the future value of
current that has to be injected into the grid by the inverter. Taking into account the fixed num-
ber of switching states that can be generated by a static PEC the model of the system can be
used to envisage the behaviour of the control variables for each switching state. The block dia-
gram of the MPCC scheme is shown in Fig. 5.
The reference current is generated using (6) and the output current at k-th instant of time
io(k) is measured. The system model is used to predict the value of the output current in the
next sampling interval (k þ 1). A cost function is defined to evaluate the error between the ref-
erence and predicted current commands in the next sampling interval. The voltage level that
minimizes the cost function is selected and applied.22

1. Cost function
The cost function plays the most significant role for improved performance of the control
scheme. The central goal of the cost function is to control a particular system variable by mini-
mizing the error between the reference and predicted values. One of the major benefits of this
scheme is that several variables and constraints can be incorporated into a single cost function.
In this paper, the cost function is the square of error between the reference and predicted cur-
rents and is expressed in orthogonal coordinates as in (19),

P 2 ref P 2
gi ¼ ðiref
a  ia Þ þ ðib  ib Þ ; (19)
ref
where iref
a and ib are the real and imaginary parts of the reference current that controls the real
and reactive powers of the system, respectively, iPa and iPb are the real and imaginary parts of
the predicted current vector io(k þ 1). Since the sampling frequency is quite high, the reference
current at (k þ 1) interval is considered equal to k-th interval current vector. The cost function
is not subjected to any constraints, and since both the terms of the functions are of same physi-
cal nature, no weighting matrices are involved. Since the number of switching states is fixed
for single phase VSI, the optimization is performed online.

2. H-bridge inverter model

Model of the inverter shows a relationship between the switching states and output voltage
levels. As a single phase H-bridge inverter consists of four switches, Sa and Sb are the gate sig-
nals which controls the switching of the switches S1–S4. The four possible switching states of the
inverter are tabulated in Table I. The inverter output voltage vo can be associated with the
switching state as in (20). The consequent four voltage levels obtained are tabulated in Table II,

vo ¼ vdc S: (20)

FIG. 5. Block diagram of the MPCC scheme.

015301-9 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

TABLE I. Switching states of the inverter.

Sa ¼ {1, if S1 ON and S2 OFF

Sa ¼ {0, if S1 OFF and S2 ON
Sb ¼ {1, if S3 ON and S4 OFF
Sb ¼ {0, if S3 OFF and S4 ON

3. Discretization of system model

The differential equation describing the dynamics of the system (1) has to be discretized
for a sampling time Ts. The discretized model is used to predict the future value of current vec-
tor with the knowledge of measured current and voltage at k-th instant of time. Euler forward
method is opted for discretization of the first order system equation,

dio io ðk þ 1Þ  io ðkÞ
 : (21)
dt Ts

Substituting (21) in (1), the future output current at time k þ 1, for each one of the four val-
ues of output voltage vector v0(k) generated by the inverter can be given by (22),
 
P RTs Ts  
i ðk þ 1Þ ¼ 1 i o ðk Þ þ v o ðk Þ  v g ðk Þ : (22)
L L

The cost function evaluates the error between the reference and predicted current vectors.
The value of the cost function decides which voltage vector is selected for switching. The volt-
age vector for which the current prediction is nearby to the desired current reference is selected
for the next sampling instant to be applied, which implies that the cost function is minimized
for that selected vector. For example, Table III shows the voltage levels and the corresponding
value of cost function for a particular sampling instant. The voltage vector v2 is selected for
switching as the cost function is optimum for that level at that instant.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A 1 kW grid tied single phase inverter system is simulated using the MATLAB/
SIMULINK software. The parameters used in the simulation study are tabulated in Table IV.

A. Steady state performance evaluation

While operating in steady state, the task of the inverter is to supply 1 kW of active power
to the grid from the source. Hence, the reactive power reference Qref is set to zero and the
active power reference Pref is 1000 W. The current injected by the VSI into the grid has to be
in phase with the grid voltage so that an output power factor of unity can be maintained. The
rate of harmonic pollution in case of each current controller is measured in terms of THD.
From Fig. 6, it can be observed that the performance of MPCC is very good. The grid cur-
rent is in phase synchronisation with the grid voltage and the calculated output power factor is

TABLE II. Voltage levels generated by inverter.

Sa Sb Voltage level

0 0 v0 ¼ 0
1 0 v1 ¼ vdc
0 1 v2 ¼ vdc
1 1 v3 ¼ 0
015301-10 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

TABLE III. Cost function optimization.

Voltage vector Cost function value

v0 gi0 ¼ 0.0145
v1 gi1 ¼ 0.0841
v2 gi2 ¼ 0.0097 (optimum)
v3 gi3 ¼ 0.0145

TABLE IV. Simulation parameter.

Parameter Values

Grid voltage (vg) 220 V (rms)

DC link voltage (vdc) 360 V
Grid side filter inductance (L) 10 mH
Internal resistance of inductance (R) 0.05 X
Switching frequency (fsw) 10 kHz
Sampling time (Ts) 5 ls
Simulation time (t) 0.2 s

0.99. The THD value for grid current is 1.49%. Similar behaviour is observed from Fig. 7, for
PR current controller but the THD value of grid current is 3.31% and the current settles down
to steady state after two cycles.

B. Transient state performance evaluation

To evaluate the performance of current controllers in transient state, different loading sce-
narios are considered. When the grid has to supply an inductive load, the inverter needs to
inject reactive power into the grid. On the other hand, when a capacitive load is connected, the
reactive power demand falls and the inverter draws reactive power from the grid.

FIG. 6. Steady state waveforms for MPCC.

015301-11 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

FIG. 7. Steady state waveforms for PRCC.

The objective of the controller is to maintain constant active power flow to grid while there
is a change in the reactive power demand. To study this, the reactive power demand is changed
from 500 Var to 500 Var at 0.1 s. From Fig. 8, it can be observed that the transient perfor-
mance of MPCC is very fast. At 0.1 s, the power factor changes from 45 lagging to leading,
without any dynamics in the current waveform. The active power flow to grid is maintained
constant at 1 kW, which demonstrates the decoupling control of active and reactive powers.
Similar performance evaluation tests are performed for the PR controller and the results are
shown in Fig. 9. The transient response of PRCC is observed to be sluggish, with dynamics in
grid current.
The controller performance is also evaluated under voltage sag and swell conditions. A
30% of voltage sag is created for grid voltage at 0.1 s and the system is simulated with the
active current reference of 6.4 A and the reactive current reference set to zero. It is clear from
Fig. 8 that as the grid voltage sags, the current remains constant and is in phase with voltage
for MPCC. On the other hand, from Fig. 9, it is observed that for PRCC the current waveform
is also aligned with the voltage waveform, but with some dynamics in the waveform.
Likewise, a grid voltage swell of 20% is created at 0.1 s. It is observed from Fig. 8 that
the proposed current controller shows an exceptional performance during voltage swell by
maintaining a stable output current aligned with the grid voltage. Fig. 9 depicts that though the
grid current and voltage are in phase synchronization, the current magnitude reduces with some
dynamics as the voltage swells with PRCC.

V. EXPERIMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION
The proposed MPCC strategy for single phase grid connected VSI is validated by experi-
mental implementation. The PRCC scheme is also implemented on digital platform. The snap-
shot of experimental setup is shown in Fig. 10. The intelligent power module (IPM)
(PEC16DSM01) is basically a three level inverter, but for the experimental purpose it is oper-
ated as a single phase inverter by giving pulses to only two legs. The control algorithm is exe-
cuted using TMS320F2812, 32-bit fixed point digital signal processor (DSP). A Joint Test
Action Group (JTAG) made emulator is used to dump the control algorithm from PC to DSP.
PWM control signals at 10 kHz switching frequency is generated from DSP. LEM manufac-
tured current transducer LA 55-P and voltage transducer LV 25-P are used to sense inverter
015301-12 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

FIG. 8. Transient state waveforms for MPCC.

output current and grid voltage, respectively. The Hall effect transducers transform the sensed
voltage and current quantities to low power level signals. The voltage and current sensors are
calibrated to scale down a voltage of 6220 V (rms) to 65 V range and current of 64.5 A (rms)
to 65 V signal, respectively. The sensed signals are feedback to the DSP via the analog to digi-
tal conversion (ADC) channels. A single phase auto transformer emulates the grid. The output
of the IPM is connected to the single phase grid by a toroid ring ferrite core inductor.
Yokogawa WT500 power analyzer is used to perform the harmonic analysis of the experimental
waveforms. The results are viewed on digital storage oscilloscope (DSO).

A. Experimental results
From Fig. 11, it can be observed that the grid current is aligned with the grid voltage and
the power factor is 0.982 and 0.965 in the case of the proposed and existing control schemes,
respectively. But the experimental THD value of MPCC is 2.808% and PRCC is 5.629%. This
reveals that the proposed controller shows better steady state response than the PRCC.
The transient state experimental results are illustrated in Fig. 12. When the inverter sup-
plies an inductive load, the reactive power demand is þ500 Var, and the current starts lagging
the voltage by almost 45 . On the other hand, when it powers a capacitive load, the reactive
power demand is 500 Var and the current leads the voltage waveform by 45 . The
015301-13 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

FIG. 9. Transient state waveforms for PRCC.

experimental results show that the proposed controller shows an excellent performance during
the change in reactive power demands. In case of PRCC, the current waveform shows distor-
tions during transient conditions with the change in reactive power demands.
There is a significant difference between the experimental and simulation results. This dif-
ference arises due to the fact that the simulation study is performed under ideal conditions but
experimental platform does have some restrictions. The converter switches may incur some
conduction losses, minute calibration errors may also be present in the sensors. Moreover, while
implementing a digital control algorithm on a DSP platform, there are delays in the system.
The system delay may deteriorate the performance of the system.

VI. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT

The proposed controller is compared with the PR controller which is well known for con-
trol of single phase grid-tied DG based inverter. The comparative assessment is performed in
steps given below.
015301-14 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

FIG. 10. Snapshot of the experimental setup.

A. Controller design
The design of MPCC is intuitive. The PWM modulator is eliminated. Hence, there is no
need of linearizing the system model. Tuning of controller parameters is not obligatory. On the
other hand, the PR controller is a linear control technique which involves PWM modulator for
generating pulses for the converter. Moreover, it requires tuning of controller gains to obtain
the desired performance.
It is expected that as MPCC involves online optimisation of the cost function, the computa-
tion time will be more. But for control of PEC the computational burden is lesser because of

FIG. 11. Steady state experimental results. (a) Steady state voltage and current with MPCC. (b) Steady state voltage and
current with PRCC. (c) Harmonic analysis for MPCC. (d) Harmonic analysis for PRCC.
015301-15 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

FIG. 12. Transient state experimental results. (a) Voltage and current waveforms with MPCC for lagging power factor. (b)
Voltage and current waveforms with PRCC for lagging power factor. (c) Voltage and current waveforms with MPCC for
leading power factor. (d) Voltage and current waveforms with PRCC for leading power factor.

the finite number of switching states. With the advent of low cost and high computing speed
digital signal processor, the MPCC scheme can be implemented practically with effortlessness.

B. Steady state performance

The PR controller can achieve good steady state response with lower value of THD of grid
current. The PR controller does have the provision for additional harmonic compensators (HC)
especially for lower order harmonics but inclusion of HC will increase the order of the system
and leads to instability. Hence, in our research work we have not included the HC in the PR
control.
The proposed controller tracks the sinusoidal reference current perfectly, with almost zero
steady state error. The cost function minimizes the current error, which is the major reason
behind its superior performance. The THD value of grid current is lower that the THD value
obtained with the PR control.

C. Dynamic response
The major drawback associated with the PR controller is its sluggish transient response.
The MPCC overcomes this drawback and shows an excellent performance in transient state by
controlling the reactive power exchange with the grid, and without any dynamics in the grid
current. During grid voltage distortion conditions like in case of voltage sag or swell, it success-
fully maintains a constant current output.
The proposed MPCC for single phase VSI can accomplish a better steady state and tran-
sient response than the PR controller because of its cost function optimisation.
The comparative analysis is summarized in Table V.
015301-16 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

TABLE V. Comparative study of current controllers.

Steady state Transient state THD (simulation) THD (expt.) Power factor
Controller performance performance (%) (%) (expt.)

PRCC Good Poor 3.31 5.629 0.965

MPCC Excellent Fast 1.49 2.808 0.982

VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a model predictive current control strategy is proposed for single phase grid
connected VSI. The projected controller is evaluated in terms of its design, steady state perfor-
mance, and dynamic response. The MPCC is also compared with the well-known PR current
controller. The simulation and experimental results confirm that the MPCC is successful in
achieving high output power factor and low THD value for grid current during the steady state
operation. It also shows superior performance by regulating power exchange between the grid
and the source during transient conditions like the change in the reactive power demands and
grid voltage distortions. Hence, the proposed strategy stands out to be one of the advance con-
trollers for control of power inverters in the single phase grid integration of distributed power
generation systems.
1
F. Blaabjerg, Z. Chen, and S. B. Kjaer, “Power electronics as efficient interface in dispersed power generation systems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 19(5), 1184–1194 (2004).
2
Y. Xue, L. Chang, S. B. Kjaer, J. Bordonau, and T. Shimizu, “Topologies of single-phase inverters for small distributed
power generators: An overview,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 19(5), 1305–1314 (2004).
3
S. Nema, R. K. Nema, and G. Agnihotri, “Inverter topologies and control structure in photovoltaic applications: A
review,” J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 3, 012701 (2011).
4
T. Ngo and S. Santoso, “Grid-connected photovoltaic converters: Topology and grid interconnection,” J. Renewable
Sustainable Energy 6, 032901 (2014).
5
G. M. Shafiullah, A. M. T. Oo, A. B. M. S. Ali, P. Wolfs, and A. Stojcevski, “Experimental and simulation study of the
impact of increased photovoltaic integration with the grid,” J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 6, 033144 (2014).
6
F. Blaabjerg, R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre, and A. V. Timbus, “Overview of control and grid synchronization for distributed
power generation systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 53(5), 1398–1409 (2006).
7
A. Timbus, M. Liserre, R. Teodorescu, P. Rodriguez, and F. Blaabjerg, “Evaluation of current controllers for distributed
power generation systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 24(3), 654–664 (2009).
8
M. Monfared and S. Golestan, “Control strategies for single-phase grid integration of small-scale renewable energy sour-
ces: A review,” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 16(7), 4982–4993 (2012).
9
H. Kim and K. H. Kim, “Filter design for grid connected PV inverters,” in IEEE International Conference on Sustainable
Energy Technologies, Singapore (2008), pp. 24–27.
10
S. Sakamoto, T. Izumi, T. Yokoyama, and T. Haneyosh, “A new method for digital PLL control using estimated quadra-
ture two phase frequency detection,” in Proceedings of the Power Conversion Conference, Osaka (2002), pp. 671–676.
11
Krismadinata, N. A. Rahim and J. Selvaraj, “Implementation of hysteresis current control for single-phase grid connected
inverter,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Power Electronics and Drive Systems, Bangkok, Thailand
(2007), pp. 1097–1101.
12
P. A. Dahono, “New hysteresis current controller for single-phase full-bridge inverters,” IET Power Electron. 2(5),
585–594 (2009).
13
B. Bahrani, A. Rufer, S. Kenzelmann, and L. A. C. Lopes, “Vector control of single-phase voltage-source converters
based on fictive-axis emulation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. 47(2), 831–840 (2011).
14
Y. Cheng, K. Chen, L. Bai, and J. Yang, “Improvement of the grid-connect current quality using novel proportional-
integral controller for photovoltaic inverters,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 025110 (2014).
15
D. N. Zmood and D. G. Holmes, “Stationary frame current regulation of PWM inverters with zero steady-state error,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 18(3), 814–822 (2003).
16
R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, M. Liserre, and P. C. Loh, “Proportional-resonant controllers and filters for grid connected
voltage-source converters,” IEE Proc., Electr. Power Appl. 153(5), 750–762 (2006).
17
M. Castilla, J. Miret, J. Matas, L. G. Vicuna, and J. M. Guerrero, “Linear current control scheme with series resonant har-
monic compensator for single-phase grid-connected photovoltaic systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 55(7), 2724–2733
(2008).
18
M. Castilla, J. Miret, J. Matas, L. G. Vicuna, and J. M. Guerrero, “Control design guidelines for single phase grid con-
nected photovoltaic inverters with damped resonant harmonic compensators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 56(11),
4492–4501 (2009).
19
A. Chatterjee and K. B. Mohanty, “Design and analysis of stationary frame PR current controller for performance
improvement of grid tied PV inverter,” in Proceedings of IEEE 6th India International Conference on Power Electronics
(IICPE), Gwalior (2014), pp. 1–6.
20
R. Kadri, J. Gaubert, G. Champenois, and M. Mostefai, “Design of a single-phase grid-connected photovoltaic system
based on deadbeat current control with LCL filter,” in 14th International Conference on Power Electronics and Motion
Control Conference (EPE/PEMC), Ohrid (2010), pp. 147–153.
015301-17 Chatterjee et al. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 9, 015301 (2017)

21
P. Cortes, M. P. Kazmierkowski, R. M. Kennel, D. E. Quevedo, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive control in power electron-
ics and drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 55(12), 4312–4324 (2008).
22
S. Kouro, P. Cortes, R. Vargas, U. Ammann, and J. Rodriguez, “Model predictive control—A simple and powerful
method to control power converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 56(6), 1826–1838 (2009).
23
J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, C. A. Silvam, P. Correa, P. Lezana, P. Cortes, and U. Ammann, “Predictive current control of a
voltage source inverter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 54(1), 495–503 (2007).
24
P. Cortes, G. Ortiz, J. I. Yuz, J. Rodriguez, S. Vazquez, and L. G. Franquelo, “Model predictive control of an inverter
with output LC filter for UPS applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 56(6), 1875–1883 (2009).
25
J. Hu, J. Zhu, and D. G. Dorrell, “Model predictive control of inverters for both islanded and grid-connected operations in
renewable power generations,” IET Renewable Power Gener. 8(3), 240–248 (2014).
26
S. Vazquez, J. I. Leon, L. G. Franquelo, J. Rodriguez, H. A. Young, A. Marquez, and P. Zanchetta, “Model predictive
control - A review of its applications in power electronics,” IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 8(1), 16–3 (2014).