This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2515072, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
Analysis of Finite-Control-Set Model Predictive
Current Control with Model Parameter Mismatch in
a Three-Phase Inverter
Hector A. Young, Member, IEEE, Marcelo A. Perez, Senior Member, IEEE, Jose Rodriguez, Fellow Member, IEEE
Abstract—It is well known that predictive control methods can
be affected by the presence of modeling errors. The extent to
which Finite-Control-Set Model Predictive Control (FCS-MPC)
is influenced by parametric uncertainties is a recurrent concern
at the moment of evaluating the viability of this method for
power electronics applications. This paper proposes an analytic
approach to examine the influence of model parametric uncer-
tainties on the prediction error of FCS-MPC for current control
in a three-phase two-level inverter. The analysis shows that the
prediction error is not only determined by parametric mismatch
but also by the instantaneous values of load current and inverter
output voltage. This implies that within each sampling period of
the predictive algorithm several conditions of prediction error are
generated, as multiple voltage vectors are evaluated. Simulation
and experimental results are provided and discussed, showing
the effects of inaccuracies in the modeling of load resistance
and inductance parameters on the performance of FCS-MPC.
Even though steady-state performance is noticeably affected
with parameter changes, especially when the load inductance
is overestimated by the model, its fast transient step response is
less affected by parameter changes.
Index Terms—Power electronics, current control, predictive
control.
I. I NTRODUCTION
During the last decade, model predictive control (MPC)
has received increased attention from the research community
and its feasibility for a wide range of applications in power
converters and drives has been demonstrated [1]. Within this
area of application, MPC techniques can be separated in two
categories depending on how the switching signals that control
the operation of the power converters are generated [2]. In one
approach the predictive algorithm yields continuous outputs
which serve as references for a modulation stage [3]. The other
class of MPC does not employ a modulation stage but relies
instead on the switched nature of power converters, where
Manuscript received May 31, 2015; revised August 31, 2015 and November
5, 2015; accepted December 17, 2015.
Copyright (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
The authors acknowldege the support of Centro Basal FB0008 Advanced
Center for Electrical and Electronics Engineering (AC3E), Universidad An-
dres Bello and the Chilean National Fund for Scientific and Technological
Development (FONDECYT), under grant No. 1150829.
H.A. Young is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidad
de La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile, (e-mail: hector.young@ufrontera.cl).
M.A. Perez is with the Electronics Engineering Department, Universi-
dad Técnica Federico Santa Marı́a, Valparaiso 2390123, Chile, (e-mail:
marcelo.perez@usm.cl).
J. Rodriguez is with the Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Andres Bello,
Santiago, Chile, (e-mail: jose.rodriguez@unab.cl).
0278-0046 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
only a finite number of output states is available. These states
are evaluated in order to select the optimal one in terms of
the control objectives and constraints of the application. This
approach is known as finite-control-set MPC (FCS-MPC) [4].
Applications of FCS-MPC have been explored in power
electronics systems where it contributes with several advan-
tages such as fast transient response, simple implementa-
tion and straightforward handling of non-linearities and con-
straints [5]. However, the direct use of system models for
selecting the optimal control actions make predictive methods
prone to changes in their performance when facing modeling
errors or parameter variations. Therefore, the influence of
errors in the prediction model remains as a major concern
in FCS-MPC [6].
Due to the non-linear nature of FCS-MPC, it is not possible
to assess the effect of the parameter variation using the same
well-established analysis methods as in linear systems. Hence,
in previous research the effect of model parameter mismatch
has been evaluated empirically by studying the behavior of
FCS-MPC under different uncertainty scenarios. These studies
have been carried out in applications involving current pre-
diction and control with three-phase two-level inverters [7]–
[9], active-front end rectifiers [6], multi-level voltage source
converters [10] and multiphase electric drives [11].
Qualitative observations have led to practical guidelines
for adjusting the value of the modeled inductance in order
to reduce the effects of possible mismatches [6], [7]. As
for uncertainty in the load resistance parameter, its influence
on the operation of FCS-MPC has been often regarded as
less relevant or negligible [6], [7], [11]. Other studies have
focused on the separate influence of resistance and inductance
uncertainties on the prediction model of FCS-MPC [8], [9].
These works concluded that resistance variations are related to
steady-state error in the predicted current, whereas inductance
variations are responsible for errors in both the predicted
current steady-state and dynamics, leading to increased ripple
in the controlled current.
Previous research has relied mostly on empirical methods
to study the performance of FCS-MPC under parametric
uncertainties in the prediction model. This work is aimed
to propose a mathematical analysis of the prediction error
under uncertainty of the modeled load parameters. The study
is complemented by simulation and experimental results using
a 5.5 kW two-level three-phase inverter.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2515072, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 2

work as a simple way to compensate for the unavoidable cal-

Vdc L0 R0 v0 culation delay in the digital implementation of the predictive
v i controller [12]. A cost function, designed according to the
n
required objectives and constraints, is then applied to the set
of predictions and a discrete optimization process yields the
control action to be applied to the converter. The cost function
employed in this work aims for load current reference tracking
Fig. 1. Generic voltage-source converter model.
and is given by:
k+2
gFCS = |ek+2
α | + |eβ |, (3)
II. S YSTEM MODEL AND CURRENT CONTROL METHODS
In this section the model of a generalized three-phase con- where ek+2
α and ek+2
β are the predicted tracking errors of the
verter is presented along with details of the model predictive load current in the stationary reference frame at the sampling
control current strategy. Additionally, for comparison purposes instant k + 2. These errors are calculated as:
the description of a linear PI controller with space vector ek+2 =i∗,k+2 − ik+2 (4)
α α α
modulation strategy is given.
ek+2
β =i∗,k+2
β − ik+2
β , (5)

A. Generalized voltage source converter model
The generalized voltage source converter model is shown
in Fig. 1, whose dynamical model is given by:
d i
v = R0 i + L0
i + v0 (1)
dt
The voltage-source converter described by this equation can
have any number of levels and phases because it takes into
account only the output voltage which changes accordingly to
the converter topology. For example, in a two-level three-phase
converter this voltage corresponds to a three-phase vector
v = [va vb vc ] which can produce in any phase two voltage
levels, hence a total of 8 different voltage states (6 active and
2 zero) can be produced. Furthermore, in the case of a three-
level single-phase neutral point converter the output voltage is
a scalar value which can have three voltage values per arm,
hence a total 9 voltages states (5 output voltages levels with
redundancies) can be generated.
On the other hand, the model is representative whether an
AC machine load or a grid connection is considered. In the
first case the inductive-resistive elements model the stator and
rotor equivalent and the voltage source v0 corresponds to the
induced electromagnetic force. As for the second case, the
inductive-resistive elements can model the input filter or the
AC line and the voltage source represents the grid voltage.
Using the forward Euler method with a sampling time Ts the
following discrete model is obtained:
 
R0 k Ts k
k+1
v − v0 k .


i = 1 − Ts i + (2)
L0 L0
B. Predictive control algorithm
The FCS-MPC algorithm works by determining, at each
sampling interval, the optimal combination of switching states
to be applied to the power converter. This is accomplished
by using a mathematical model of the system to predict its
behavior for each of the available control actions, which are
the output voltage states of the converter. The predictions are
made within a time horizon of usually one or two sampling
periods [5]. The latter option, which implies evaluating pre-
dictions at the sampling instant k + 2, is employed in this
using the real and complex components of the current refer-
ence i∗,k+2
α , i∗,k+2
β and the prediction ik+2 = ik+2
α + jik+2
β ,
which is obtained by iterating (2):
 
R0 k+1 Ts k+1
ik+2 = 1 − Ts − v0 k+1 ,


+ v (6)
L0 L0
where vk+1 is the control action evaluated during the ex-
ecution of the predictive algorithm. Moreover, assuming a
sampling frequency much higher than that of the load voltage
source, the latter can be considered constant between consec-
utive sampling instants so that v0k+1 ≈ v0k .
C. Linear current controller
In order to assess the performance of the FCS-MPC subject
to modeling error, its behavior is compared to that of a
widely-accepted control strategy: a linear proportional-integral
controller with space vector modulation (PI-SVM). The linear
current controller has been implemented in the rotating syn-
chronous dq frame allowing operation with zero steady-state
error (SSE), and includes feed-forward terms to overcome
cross-coupling effects caused by the inductance [13]. The
transfer function of the PI controller in the Laplace domain is
the following:
1 + sTi
C(s) = Kp (7)
sTi
A well-known procedure, the magnitude optimum (MO)
technique [14], was employed for designing the parameters
of the PI-SVM controller. The design objective is to extend
the bandwidth of the closed-loop system as much as possible
given the constraints imposed by dynamics and delays of the
system. This allows a reasonable comparison with the FCS-
MPC, which features a particularly fast transient response. For
the tuning of the linear controller, the dynamics given by the
nominal load parameters (R0 and L0 ) have been considered.
The value of the integral time is set to Ti = L0 /R0 , which
aims to cancel the dominant pole of the plant with the
controller’s zero. The proportional gain is then calculated by
Kp = L0 /2T0 . In this last expression, T0 accounts for the
equivalent delay introduced by the modulation and the digital
implementation of the control algorithm. This delay can be

0278-0046 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2515072, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 3

approximated by T0 = 1.5TSVM [15], the latter parameter 18

being the sampling period of the SVM modulation. In order 16 R/R0 = 0.5
to improve the transient performance of the PI-SVM, an anti- R/R0 = 0.75

Prediction error |∆|/|ik |(%)

14 R/R0 = 1
windup scheme based on the feedback of constrained actuation
signals through a transfer function containing the dynamics of 12 R/R0 = 1.25
the controller [16] has been implemented. 10 R/R0 = 1.50
As described above, the design procedure of the PI-SVM
depends on the knowledge of the model parameters. There- 8
fore the presence of parametric uncertainties will affect the 6
performance of the linear controller. As for the steady-state
4
performance, the integral component of the PI-SVM will
account for changes in the load parameters, allowing to obtain 2
zero steady-state error. However, the transient response is 0
expected to deteriorate since the pole-zero cancellation in the 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
design stage of the controller no longer holds when the load Inductance (L/L0)
parameters differ from their nominal values. This can give rise
Fig. 2. Magnitude of the prediction error with load inductance between 50%
to the appearance of higher order dynamics in the closed loop and 150% of its modeled value and different degrees of uncertainty in the
response, as will be shown later in Section IV. load resistance.

III. P REDICTION ERROR IN FCS-MPC DUE TO MODEL

PARAMETER MISMATCH
Equation (10) can be used to calculate the prediction error
due to any combination of values for the model parameter
Tolerances in the manufacturing process can cause small mismatches R̃ and L̃. The prediction error depends on ik ,
unbalances in loads with three or more phases, which can be an which is measured at each sampling step of the predictive
issue for particular applications [17]. However, the assumption algorithm. It also depends on the load voltage source v0 k ,
of balanced loads and simultaneous variation of the load pa- which is not affected by changes in the load inductance and
rameters is widely accepted in studies on parameter estimation resistance values. As for the inverter output voltages vk ,
and sensitivity analysis [6], [11], [18]. Consequently, this they depend only on the switching state of the inverter and
approach is also adopted in this work. its dc-link voltage. Therefore, the prediction error does not
In order to develop an analysis of the effect of a mismatch depend on the prediction error at previous steps, thus having
between the parameter values and the real system, let us review a non-cumulative nature.
the current prediction model using load parameters R0 and It is worth highlighting that the prediction error (10) is a
L0 for resistance and inductance, respectively. It is possible to complex vector that depends on the instantaneous values of
represent the parameter variation by adding uncertain compo- load current ik and voltage v∆ k
. As defined before, this latter
nents R̃ and L̃ to the resistance and inductance values used variable is the voltage difference between the inverter output
in the model. Therefore, the real load values are given by and the load voltage source. Within each sampling period the
R = R0 + R̃ and L = L0 + L̃ for resistance and inductance, load voltage source remains constant whereas a number of
respectively. Including this in (2) and introducing the variable inverter output voltages need to be evaluated, creating different
k
v∆ = vk − v0 k , the following modified prediction equation prediction error scenarios.
is obtained:
! This study considers a two-level three-phase inverter with
k+1 (R0 + R̃)Ts k Ts k a total of seven different output voltages to be evaluated on
ĩ = 1− i + v∆ , (8)
L0 + L̃ L0 + L̃ each sampling period. This leads to a wide range of cases
depending on the magnitude of voltage and current vectors
where ĩk+1 is the current prediction to the next sampling and their relative orientation in a complex plane, as well as
instant subject to parameter variations. In the following anal- the amount of parametric error in the load resistance and
ysis, for the sake of simplicity and compact notation, one- inductance. In order to limit the number of scenarios in
step-ahead predictions are used. However, the results can be which the prediction error is analyzed, a fixed amplitude of
k
extended to the case with two-step-ahead predictions. v∆ with a relative angle of 5π/6 rad with respect to the
The prediction error ∆ is defined as the difference between instant current is employed. This angle was selected because it
the prediction given by the error-free model and the one implies a condition where high prediction errors are generated,
subject to parameter uncertainty: as will be discussed later in this section. Fig. 2 shows the
prediction error for a range of load inductance mismatch and
∆ = ik+1 − ĩk+1 . (9) different degrees of uncertainty in the load resistance. The
By substituting (2) and (8) in the above equation, the following error is presented as the magnitude ratio between prediction
expression is obtained: error and the error-free current prediction (2). As expected,
the case where L/L0 = 1 and R/R0 = 1 yields error-free
Ts h i
∆= (R̃L0 − R0 L̃)ik + L̃v∆k
. (10) predictions. Moreover, the dependence of the prediction error
L0 (L0 + L̃) on changes in the load inductance is remarkably asymmetric:

0278-0046 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2515072, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 4

Prediction error |∆|/|ik |(%) 20 RL load

Grid
15 L/L0 = 0.5 Vdc
R/R0 = 1.5 L/L0 = 1.5 +
10 R/R0 = 0.5
L/L0 = 1 3
R/R0 = 1.5 Voltage-source inverter
Switching Current/voltage
5 Danfoss VLT5008
signals
Vdc measurements

0
0 π/2 π 3π/2 2π
Relative angle between ik and v∆
k
(rad)
Fig. 3. Magnitude of the prediction error as a function of the relative angle PC dSPACE 1103
between instantaneous current and voltage vectors.
Fig. 4. Schematic layout of the experimental setup.

for a real inductance lower than the modeled one (L/L0 < 1), TABLE I
the effect on the prediction error is noticeably heavier than PARAMETERS USED FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS .
in the opposite situation. This holds true with all the tested Parameter Value Unit Description
amounts of simultaneous resistance mismatch, although the Ts 50 µs Sampling period for FCS-MPC
TSVM 250 µs Sampling period for PI-SVM
effect is increased with higher R/R0 ratios. As an effect of inom 5.5 A Nominal load current
this asymmetry, the prediction error is more severe when the f∗ 50 Hz Current reference frequency
model overestimates the load inductance. 5 Ω Min. load resistance
R 10 Ω Nominal load resistance (R0 )
As can be deduced from (10), not only the parametric 20 Ω Max. load resistance
uncertainties have an effect on the prediction error but also the 5 mH Min. load inductance
k 10 mH
instant values of the load current and v∆ . Since the amplitude L Nominal load inductance (L0 )
15 mH Max. load inductance
of the voltage vectors that can be generated by the power
converter are fixed and the load voltage source is a slow-
varying disturbance, it is convenient for this analysis to con-
inverter (Danfoss VLT5008) with a dc-link voltage of Vdc =
sider as a variable only the angle between the aforementioned
100 V and a three-phase RL load. A dSPACE1103 platform
vectors. Fig. 3 shows the prediction error as a function of this
connected to a personal computer was used for implementing
angle for three cases of parametric mismatch. It is possible
the digital control algorithms.
to observe that the maximum prediction errors occur when
The SVM used with the PI controller has a switching
the angle between both vectors is close to π rad, i.e. they
period TSVM = 250 µs and is generated by the slave DSP
are opposed to each other. One of the chosen combination
unit of the dSPACE1103, a TMS320F240 with 16 bits and a
of parameter uncertainties is the one that leads to the highest
resolution of 50 ns. For the predictive controller, a sampling
prediction errors in Fig. 2 (L/L0 = 0.5 and R/R0 = 1.5),
time Ts = 50 µs has been selected. This makes possible to
confirming that these results are the worst case condition
obtain an average switching frequency comparable to that of
(≈ 18% of prediction error). The combination L/L0 = 1.5
the PI-SVM under nominal load parameter conditions.
and R/R0 = 0.5 also leads to a bell-shaped curve with a
The results are presented for operating points defined by
maximum around π rad. In the case of an exact modeling
the peak current reference i∗ in per-unit notation, referred to
of the inductance (L/L0 = 1, L̃ = 0), the dependence on
the nominal current inom . Current references with a frequency
the instantaneous angle between current and voltage is largely
f ∗ = 50 Hz and amplitudes ranging between 0.05 and 0.85 pu
reduced. This follows from (10) where L̃ links the inverter
(0.275 and 4.675 A) have been used. The parameters consid-
output voltage vector with the prediction error.
ered in the experiments are presented in Table I.

IV. E XPERIMENTAL RESULTS

In this section, experimental results are presented to illus-
trate the effects of mismatches between the modeled values
of the load resistance and inductance on the performance of
FCS-MPC. The behavior of a linear PI-SVM controller under
similar operating conditions is also presented and discussed
for comparison purposes.
A. Experimental setup
The experimental setup used for this study is represented in
Fig. 4. The power stage consists of a two-level voltage-source
B. Steady-state performance under modeling errors
The performance of FCS-MPC and the linear controller in
terms of the current steady-state error (SSE) with different
amounts of error between the modeled and the real load
inductance is given by Fig. 5. The modeled inductance value is
L0 = 10 mH whereas the actual load inductances considered
were 5, 10 and 15 mH. From the results, it is clear that the PI-
SVM is able to achieve zero SSE with all the tested inductance
changes. On the other hand, FCS-MPC exhibits large steady-
state error for current references below 0.2 pu, even when
there is no mismatch between the modeled and the real values

0278-0046 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2515072, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 5

40 R/R0 = 2 L/L0 = 1.5

PI-SVM (all tests) 25

WTHD (%)
20 PI-SVM
FCS-MPC L/L0 = 1
30 15 FCS-MPC
Current SSE (%)

FCS-MPC L/L0 = 1.5 10

FCS-MPC L/L0 = 0.5 5
0
20 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(a)
R/R0 = 1 L/L0 = 1
10
25

WTHD (%)
20
0 15
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 10
5
i∗ (pu) 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fig. 5. Current steady-state error for different combinations of load inductance (b)
mismatch with FCS-MPC and PI-SVM controllers.
R/R0 = 0.5 L/L0 = 0.5
25

WTHD (%)
PI-SVM R/R0 = 1 and R/R0 = 0.5 20
PI-SVM R/R0 = 2 15 60%
10
5
50 0
FCS-MPC R/R0 = 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Current SSE (%)

40 i∗ (pu)
FCS-MPC R/R0 = 1 (c)
30
FCS-MPC R/R0 = 0.5 Fig. 7. WTHD for different combinations of error between modeled (R0 ,
20 L0 ) and real (R, L) load parameters.

10
0 in the experiment. This is consistent with the analysis of the
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
i∗ (pu)
Fig. 6. Current steady-state error for different combinations of load resistance
mismatch with FCS-MPC and PI-SVM controllers.
of the load parameters. This behavior is characteristic of the
operation of FCS-MPC considering only current tracking as a
control objective [19], [20]. Moreover, errors in the modeled
load inductance have a moderate effect on the SSE with
the predictive controller, specially for cases where the real
inductance is lower than the modeled value.
A similar set of tests was carried out for changes in the
load resistance, considering a modeled resistance value of
R0 = 10 Ω and actual load resistances of 5, 10 and 20 Ω.
The results are presented in Fig. 6. Unlike the case where
inductance modeling errors have been considered, here the PI-
SVM controller presents a high non-zero SSE which can be
explained by the saturation of the linear controller under the
increase of the load resistance. As expected, this phenomenon
appears with reference amplitudes higher than 0.5 p.u. when
the load resistance is doubled. It is worth noting that under
these conditions, FCS-MPC achieves a lower SSE than PI-
SVM since it is not restricted to the linear modulating range
of the latter control strategy. However, the behavior of the SSE
with FCS-MPC is strongly dependent on the variations of the
load resistance throughout all the operating points considered
1 effect of resistance changes developed in Section III.
The performance of the predictive controller in terms of
weighted total harmonic distortion (WTHD) has also been as-
sessed under a range of modeling errors of the load parameters.
The results presented in Fig. 7 show three particular scenarios:
• load resistance and inductance higher than the modeled
values (Fig.7a),
• accurate load parameters in the model (Fig.7b), and
• load resistance and inductance lower than the modeled
values (Fig.7c).
Firstly, it is possible to observe that changes in the load
parameters affect the WTHD with both controllers. This is
because the resistance and inductance parameters determine
the dynamics of the load current and, therefore, the ripple
characteristics which are closely related with the harmonic
content in the signals. Taking as a reference the WTHD with
accurate model parameters (Fig. 7b) an unmodeled increase
in the load resistance and inductance can actually decrease
the WTHD, as can be seen in Fig. 7a. Nevertheless this
condition leads to an undesirable increase in the SSE, as
discussed earlier. The detrimental effect of modeling errors on
the WTHD with FCS-MPC is remarkably higher when the load
inductance is lower than the modeled value. Overestimating
the resistance of the load also increases the WTHD. Therefore,
the worst case for the FCS-MPC is when both the inductance
and the resistance values of the load are lower than the values

0278-0046 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2515072, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 6

L/L0 = 1.5 L/L0 = 1.5

0.5 0.5
ia i∗a
i∗a
i∗a , ia (pu)

i∗a , ia (pu)
0 0
ia
−0.5 −0.5
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
(a) (a)
L/L0 = 1 L/L0 = 1
0.5 0.5
i∗a , ia (pu)

i∗a , ia (pu)
0 0

−0.5 −0.5
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
(b) (b)
L/L0 = 0.5 L/L0 = 0.5
0.5 0.5
i∗a , ia (pu)

i∗a , ia (pu)
0 0

−0.5 −0.5
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
i (pu)
∗
i (pu)
∗

(c) (c)

Fig. 8. Transient response in phase a with PI-SVM under load inductance Fig. 9. Transient response in phase a with FCS-MPC under load inductance
modeling errors. modeling errors.

used in the model, as can be seen in Fig. 7c.
C. Transient performance under modeling errors
The effect of uncertainty of the load parameters on the tran-
sient behavior of FCS-MPC has been experimentally evaluated
and compared with the response of the traditional PI-SVM.
This was achieved by examining the response of the controllers
to step changes in the current reference under modeling error
conditions.
The transient responses of both the studied controllers
considering modeling errors of the load inductance are plotted
in Fig. 8 (PI-SVM) and in Fig. 9 (FCS-MPC). Changes in
the load inductance have an important effect on the current
ripple due to its filtering effect. Therefore, a reduction in
the inductance value gives rise to higher current ripple, as
presented in Figs. 8c and 9c. This can be observed for both
controllers, but it is most noticeable with the FCS-MPC. As
discussed in Section III, the effect of the inductance on the
prediction error of FCS-MPC is stronger when the real load
inductance is overestimated by the model, as can be confirmed
with these experimental results. Despite the significant current
ripple that appears with FCS-MPC as the load inductance
decreases from its nominal value, the transient step response
of the predictive controller is practically unaffected. From the
response of the PI-SVM it can be observed that changes in
the load inductance have a detrimental effect on its transient
step response. This is natural since the tuning of the PI-SVM
considers specific values of the load parameters to adjust the
desired closed-loop response.
Figs. 10 and 11 present the transient responses of the
PI-SVM and the FCS-MPC controllers with load resistance
changes, for phase a of the current. The results show that
the transient response of FCS-MPC is less affected by the
resistance changes than the PI-SVM. In the case where the
load resistance is twice the modeled value (Fig. 10a), the linear
controller exhibits a slow transient response as compared with
the nominal case (Fig. 10b). On the other hand, when the
load resistance is only 50% of its nominal value (Fig. 10c),
the response of the PI-SVM presents higher overshoot and
oscillations during the transients. Even though the response
of the FCS-MPC is fast with all the combinations of load
resistance, there exists non-zero steady-state error when the
load resistance does not match the modeled value (Figs. 11a
and 11c).
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this work the influence of model parameter mismatch on
the prediction error of FCS-MPC has been analytically studied

0278-0046 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2515072, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS 7

R/R0 = 2 R/R0 = 2
0.5 0.5
i∗a i∗a

i∗a , ia (pu)
i∗a , ia (pu)

0 0
ia
ia
−0.5 −0.5
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
(a) (a)
R/R0 = 1 R/R0 = 1
0.5 0.5

i∗a , ia (pu)
i∗a , ia (pu)

0 0

−0.5 −0.5
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
(b) (b)
R/R0 = 0.5 R/R0 = 0.5
0.5 0.5

i∗a , ia (pu)
i∗a , ia (pu)

0 0

−0.5 −0.5
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
i (pu)
∗
i (pu)
∗
(c) (c)

Fig. 10. Transient response in phase a with PI-SVM under load resistance Fig. 11. Transient response in phase a with FCS-MPC under load resistance
modeling error. modeling error.

for current control in a three-phase two-level inverter. It has
been shown that the prediction error depends not only on the
uncertainty of the load parameters in the model but also on the
instantaneous values of load current and output voltage of the
inverter. Particularly, the relative angle between both vectors
(when represented in stationaty αβ coordinates) determine the
magnitude of the prediction error, which is maximum when
both vectors are in opposition. Therefore, the prediction error
scenario changes constantly even within a single sampling
period since the FCS-MPC algorithm computes predictions for
all the available voltage vectors at each iteration, making the
analysis a challenging task. This effect is mainly present when
inductance mismatches occur, being negligible under pure
resistive parametric changes. It has also been demonstrated
that the effect of inductance changes on the performance of
FCS-MPC is asymmetric, being more detrimental the case
when the prediction model overestimates the real inductance
value.
The performance of the FCS-MPC has been experimentally
evaluated and compared to that of the PI-SVM under a number
of changes in the load parameters. The results show that
the transient step response of the FCS-MPC is less affected
than that of the linear PI-SVM controller under changes in
the load parameters. However, the steady-state performance
of the FCS-MPC deteriorates, being the changes in the load
resistance responsible for the increase in the steady-state error,
while changes in the load inductance are related to the increase
of current ripple and harmonic distortion.
R EFERENCES
[1] 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., vol. 8,
no. 1, pp. 16–31, Mar. 2014.
[2] P. Cortes, M. P. Kazmierkowski, R. M. Kennel, D. E. Quevedo, and
J. Rodriguez, “Predictive Control in Power Electronics and Drives,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4312–4324, Dec. 2008.
[3] Z. Ma, S. Saeidi, and R. Kennel, “FPGA Implementation of Model
Predictive Control With Constant Switching Frequency for PMSM
Drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 2055–2063,
Nov. 2014.
[4] 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., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1826–1838,
Jun. 2009.
[5] J. Rodriguez, M. P. Kazmierkowski, J. R. Espinoza, P. Zanchetta,
H. Abu-Rub, H. A. Young, and C. A. Rojas, “State of the Art of Finite
Control Set Model Predictive Control in Power Electronics,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Informatics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1003–1016, May 2013.
[6] S. Kwak, U.-C. Moon, and J.-C. Park, “Predictive-Control-Based Direct
Power Control With an Adaptive Parameter Identification Technique for
Improved AFE Performance,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29,
no. 11, pp. 6178–6187, Nov. 2014.
[7] J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, C. A. Silva, P. Correa, P. Lezana, P. Cortes, and
U. Ammann, “Predictive Current Control of a Voltage Source Inverter,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 495–503, Feb. 2007.

0278-0046 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2515072, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
[8] A. Flores, “Análisis de robustez del control predictivo aplicado a un
inversor trifásico de dos niveles,” Masters Thesis, Universidad Técnica
Federico Santa Marı́a, 2010.
[9] J. Rodrı́guez and P. Cortés, Predictive control of power converters and
electrical drives, 1st ed. Wiley-IEEE Press, 2012.
[10] J. D. Barros and J. F. Silva, “Optimal Predictive Control of Three-
Phase NPC Multilevel Inverter: Comparison to Robust Sliding Mode
Controller,” in Proc. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf. PESC 2007,
2007, pp. 2061–2067.
[11] B. Bogado, F. Barrero, M. Arahal, S. Toral, and E. Levi, “Sensitivity
to electrical parameter variations of Predictive Current Control in mul-
tiphase drives,” in IECON 2013 - 39th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron.
Soc. IEEE, Nov. 2013, pp. 5215–5220.
[12] P. Cortes, J. Rodriguez, C. Silva, and A. Flores, “Delay Compensation
in Model Predictive Current Control of a Three-Phase Inverter,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 1323–1325, Feb. 2012.
[13] M. Kazmierkowski, R. Krishnan, and F. Blaabjerg, Control in Power
Electronics: Selected Problems, 1st ed. Academic Press, 2002.
[14] K. Åström and T. Hägglund, PID controllers: theory, design, and tuning,
2nd ed. ISA, 1995.
[15] B.-H. Bae and S.-K. Sul, “A Compensation Method for Time Delay of
Full-Digital Synchronous Frame Current Regulator of PWM AC Drives,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 802–810, May 2003.
[16] G. C. Goodwin, S. F. Graebe, and M. E. Salgado, Control System Design,
1st ed. Prentice Hall, 2000.
[17] Y. Xu, N. Parspour, and U. Vollmer, “Torque Ripple Minimization
Using Online Estimation of the Stator Resistances With Consideration
of Magnetic Saturation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 9, pp.
5105–5114, Sep. 2014.
[18] B. Chen, W. Yao, F. Chen, and Z. Lu, “Parameter Sensitivity in Sensor-
less Induction Motor Drives With the Adaptive Full-Order Observer,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 4307–4318, Jul. 2015.
[19] R. P. Aguilera, P. Lezana, and D. E. Quevedo, “Finite-Control-Set Model
Predictive Control With Improved Steady-State Performance,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Informatics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 658–667, May 2013.
[20] H. A. Young, M. A. Perez, J. Rodriguez, and H. Abu-Rub, “Assessing
Finite-Control-Set Model Predictive Control: A Comparison with a
Linear Current Controller in Two-Level Voltage Source Inverters,” IEEE
Ind. Electron. Mag., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 44–52, Mar. 2014.
Hector A. Young (S’13-M’15) was born in Val-
paraı́so, Chile, in 1984. He received the B.Eng.
and M.Sc. degrees in electronic engineering from
the Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, Chile, in
2009, and the Ph.D. degree in electronic engineering
from the Universidad Técnica Federico Santa Marı́a,
Valparaı́so, Chile, in 2014. Currently he is with
the Universidad de La Frontera as a lecturer in
the area of power electronics. His research interests
include modeling and control of power converters
and electrical drives.
0278-0046 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
8
Marcelo A. Perez (M’07-SM’14) was born in Con-
cepción, Chile, in 1976. He received the Engineer
degree in electronic engineering, the M.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering, and the D.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering from the University of Con-
cepción, Concepción, Chile, in 2000, 2003, and
2006, respectively. From 2006 to 2009 he holds
a postdoctoral position at the Universidad Técnica
Federico Santa Marı́a, Valparaı́so, Chile, conducting
research in the area of power converters. In 2009 he
becomes an associate researcher and since 2015 he
becomes an academic at the same institution. Dr. Perez has received the 2012
Best paper award in the IEEE Industry Applications Magazine, he is Associate
Editor of IEEE Transaction on Power Electronics, Chapter Coordinator of
the IEEE-IES Region 9 Latin-America and the President of the IEEE-IES
Chapter Chile. His main interest are power converters topologies and control,
multilevel converters, simulation, electromobility, Smart Grids and HVDC
systems.
Jose Rodriguez (M’81-SM’94-F’10) received the
Engineer degree in electrical engineering from the
Universidad Técnica Federico Santa Marı́a, in Val-
paraı́so, Chile, in 1977 and the Dr.-Ing. degree in
electrical engineering from the University of Erlan-
gen, Erlangen, Germany, in 1985. He has been with
the Department of Electronics Engineering, Univer-
sidad Técnica Federico Santa Marı́a, since 1977,
where he was full Professor and President. Since
2015 he is the President of Universidad Andrés Bello
in Santiago, Chile. He has coauthored two books,
several book chapters and more than 400 journal and conference papers. His
main research interests include multilevel inverters, new converter topologies,
control of power converters, and adjustable-speed drives. He has received a
number of best paper awards from journals of the IEEE. Dr. Rodriguez is
member of the Chilean Academy of Engineering. In 2014 he received the
National Award of Applied Sciences and Technology from the government of
Chile. In 2015 he received the Eugene Mittelmann Award from the Industrial
Electronics Society of the IEEE.