energies
Article
Model Predictive Voltage Control of Uninterruptible Power
Supply Based on Extended-State Observer
Guofeng He 1,2, *, Shicheng Zheng 1,2 , Yanfei Dong 1,2 , Guojiao Li 1,2 and Wenjie Zhang 1
Citation: He, G.; Zheng, S.; Dong, Y.;
Li, G.; Zhang, W. Model Predictive
Voltage Control of Uninterruptible
Power Supply Based on
Extended-State Observer. Energies
2022, 15, 5489. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en15155489
Academic Editor: Konstantin Suslov
Received: 6 June 2022
Accepted: 25 July 2022
Published: 28 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 5489. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155489
1 School of Electrical and Control Engineering, Henan University of Urban Construction,
Pingdingshan 467036, China; 202108580021347@ctgu.edu.cn (S.Z.); 30090006@hncj.edu.cn (Y.D.);
lymjlgj@163.com (G.L.); 17530830563@163.com (W.Z.)
2 College of Electrical Engineering & New Energy, China Three Gorges University, Yichang 443002, China
* Correspondence: dragonhgf@hncj.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-158-3691-9975
Abstract: Finite-set model predictive controls have been widely used in inverter control because of
the flexible target control and no need of a modulation unit. However, the mismatching of prediction
model parameters produces prediction errors, resulting in a significant decline in the performance
of finite-set model predictive controls. Aiming at the problem of model parameter mismatch, an
extended-state observer was proposed to accurately estimate the disturbance of the system in this
paper, and the obtained disturbance value was added to a finite-set model predictive control controller
to compensate for the prediction error and achieve parameter robustness. By constructing a prediction
model of the inverter output voltage in αβ coordinates, all the possible output voltage values were
predicted by using different voltage vectors and system measurement values. A set of voltage
vectors that minimized the cost function was selected, and its corresponding switching state was
applied to the inverter in the next sampling period to achieve control of the output voltage quality.
Both the simulation and experimental results showed that the finite-set model predictive voltage
control method based on the extended-state observer can estimate the total disturbance quickly and
accurately, suppress the influence of capacitance parameter disturbance, and improve the control
effect of an inverter.
Keywords: uninterruptible power supply; extended-state observer; model predictive voltage control;
cost function
1. Introduction
UPS (uninterrupted power supply) is a kind of power supply equipment that converts
DC power into AC power with an inverter. It is usually used in many fields, such as
computing, military, medical, and aviation fields, etc., and it provides reliable and high-
quality power for key loads to ensure the normal operation of loads. A three-phase UPS
system consists of a power supply, a battery pack, a rectifier, an inverter, and an LC filter.
According to its topology, a UPS can be divided into online UPS, line-interactive UPS, and
offline UPS [1]. The control of the inverter plays a very important role in the performance
of a UPS. A UPS control system not only requires sinusoidal output voltage to have a
constant amplitude and frequency showing low harmonic distortion, but also must have a
fast dynamic response to load change.
In order to enable a UPS system to provide stable and high-quality voltage, researchers
have conducted much research on inverter control strategies and have proposed a series of
methods, including autodisturbance rejection control [2], PR control [3], adaptive control [4],
and model predictive control (MPC) [5]. Because model predictive control can fully consider
the constraints and nonlinear characteristics of a system in the control process and has
a fast dynamic response and good steady-state characteristics, it has been studied and
applied in various fields, such as energy storage converters [6], grid-connected inverters [7],
and permanent magnet synchronous motors [8]. MPC uses a system model to predict
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 2 of 20

the future behavior of variables in a sampling period and uses cost function as a tool to
select the optimal behavior of output variables. In order to simplify MPC, a mathematical
model is connected with a limited number of switching states to optimize the system. All
the possible switching states are evaluated online in this optimization method, and then
the defined cost function is minimized, which is called finite-set model predictive control
(FCS-MPC). Moreover, different prediction steps have different optimization effects on the
system [9]. The increase in the prediction step length and the inverter level state leads to
an increase in the calculation amount. Therefore, methods of fast optimization to reduce
the calculation cost have been extensively studied. In [10], a reference voltage vector was
obtained using a deadbeat control principle, and the sector of the reference voltage vector
was judged to reduce the evaluation of the voltage vector in the cost function, but the
action delay caused by plenty of calculation was not considered. The authors of [11] sorted
multiple control variables in a mathematical model and then predicted and evaluated
them one-by-one to reduce the amount of calculation of the multivariable control, but it
complicated the algorithm.
Using finite-set model predictive control to realize inverter control requires an accurate
predictive model. However, the LC filter is affected by internal and external factors
in the operation process, resulting in the mismatch of the parameters of the prediction
model of inductance and capacitance. The mismatch of the parameters of the prediction
model produces prediction errors and affects the prediction accuracy of the prediction
model. In order to solve the problem of parameter mismatch, scholars have conducted
extensive research. In the literature, [12] used measured information to calculate the actual
parameters to modify a prediction model, eliminate the influence of parameter mismatch,
and improve the robustness of predictive control, but it was easily affected by noise in the
calculation process. The authors of [13] used a disturbance observer to reduce the influence
of inductance parameter mismatch and high-frequency disturbance on the performance
of a model, but the influence of disturbance caused by resistance parameter mismatch on
the performance of the model still existed. In [14], the authors combined an extended-state
observer with predictive control to reduce the influences of parameter uncertainty and
unknown disturbance and to improve the control performance. However, most of the
above studies only focus on L-type filters.
In [15], capacitance and inductance were treated separately, and the filter capacitance
parameters in an LC filter were accurately predicted using the least-squares method to
eliminate the influence of capacitance mismatch on output voltage. The authors of [16]
adopted a continuous-set model predictive control strategy to control an inverter and
proposed a robust disturbance observer to solve the parameter uncertainty, but it was
difficult to add constraints directly. Some scholars have considered the influence of the
LC filter on model parameter mismatch in model predictive control design. However, the
problem of using an extended-state observer (ESO) to compensate for parameter mismatch
has not been applied to an LC filter. Compared with the continuous-set model predictive
control in [16], finite-set model predictive control does not need a PWM modulator, and
the optimal switching state is directly obtained through the cost function and applied to
the inverter. In order to solve the influence of parameter mismatch of a predictive model
on predictive control accuracy, in this paper a finite-set model predictive control strategy
is used to study the parameter mismatch of an LC filter using an extended-state observer.
The main novelty is that, when the parameters of the prediction model are not mismatched,
the extended-state observer can be used as a current sensor for the output current to reduce
the number of sensors. In the case of parameter mismatch, the extended-state observer can
compensate for the error caused by parameter mismatch to improve the accuracy of the
predictive control and realize parameter robustness.
In this paper, a three-phase inverter with an output LC filter is taken as an example,
and a model predictive voltage control method is designed in a static αβ coordinate system.
In view of the influences of capacitor parameter mismatch and external disturbance, an
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

In this paper, a three-phase inverter with an output LC filter is taken as an example,

Energies 2022, 15, 5489 and a model predictive voltage control method is designed in a static αβ coordinate 3sys-
of 20
tem. In view of the influences of capacitor parameter mismatch and external disturbance,
an extended-state observer is proposed to estimate the disturbance value and compensate
for the predictive
extended-state controlistoproposed
observer reduce the
to system error.
estimate the disturbance value and compensate for
The contributions of this paper are summarized
the predictive control to reduce the system error. as follows:
1. The
Theinfluence of LCoffilter
contributions this parameter mismatch onasoutput
paper are summarized voltage is evaluated;
follows:
2.1. The design process of an extended-state observer is
The influence of LC filter parameter mismatch on output voltage described in detail;
is evaluated;
3.2. Compared
The design process of an extended-state observer is described control,
with traditional finite-set model predictive voltage in detail;the proposed
3. finite-set
Compared model
withpredictive
traditional voltage control
finite-set modelmethod has better
predictive voltagestability
control,and
theparameter
proposed
robustness;
finite-set model predictive voltage control method has better stability and parame-
4. Inter the case of parameter mismatch, the robustness of the proposed finite-set model
robustness;
4. predictive
In the casecontrol is verified
of parameter through simulations
mismatch, the robustnessandofexperiments,
the proposed which proves
finite-set the
model
effectiveness of the method
predictive control is verified through simulations and experiments, which proves the
effectiveness of the method.
2. Traditional Model Predictive Voltage Control
2. Traditional
2.1. System Model Model Predictive Voltage Control
2.1. System Model
The circuit of a three-phase inverter with an output LC filter is shown in Figure 1,
whereThe L iscircuit of ainductor,
the filter three-phaseC isinverter
the filterwith an output
capacitor, 𝑖𝑓 isLCthefilter is shown
current flowing in through
Figure 1,
where L is the filter inductor, C is the filter capacitor, i is the
the filter inductor, 𝑖𝑜 is the output current, and 𝑣𝑐 is the output voltage.
f current flowing through the
filter inductor, io is the output current, and vc is the output voltage.

S1 S S2 S3
if L io
VaN
Vdc VbN
Load
VcN

C vc
S4 S5 S6

N
Three-phaseinverter
Figure1.1.Three-phase
Figure inverterwith
withoutput
outputLC
LCfilter.
filter.

Accordingto
tothe
thecontrol signal 𝑆Sa,, S𝑆b and
controlsignal Sc define the inverter switching states:
According 𝑎 𝑏 and 𝑆𝑐 define the inverter switching states:

1, i f𝑖𝑓S𝑆
1 1is𝑖𝑠ON
𝑂𝑁and
𝑎𝑛𝑑S𝑆44is𝑖𝑠OFF
𝑂𝐹𝐹

Sa 𝑎= {
𝑆 = (1)
(1)
0, i f𝑖𝑓S𝑆
1 1is𝑖𝑠 𝑂𝐹𝐹
OFF 𝑎𝑛𝑑
and S𝑆4 4 𝑖𝑠
is 𝑂𝑁
ON

1, i f𝑖𝑓S𝑆2 2is𝑖𝑠ON
𝑂𝑁and
𝑎𝑛𝑑S𝑆55is𝑖𝑠OFF
𝑂𝐹𝐹

1,
Sb 𝑏= {0,
𝑆 = (2)
(2)
0, i f𝑖𝑓S𝑆2 2is𝑖𝑠OFF
𝑂𝐹𝐹and
𝑎𝑛𝑑S𝑆5 5is𝑖𝑠ON
𝑂𝑁

1, i f𝑖𝑓S𝑆3 3is𝑖𝑠ON
𝑂𝑁and
𝑎𝑛𝑑S𝑆66is𝑖𝑠OFF
𝑂𝐹𝐹
S𝑆
c 𝑐== { (3)
(3)
0, i f𝑖𝑓S𝑆3 3is𝑖𝑠OFF
𝑂𝐹𝐹and
𝑎𝑛𝑑S𝑆6 6is𝑖𝑠ON
𝑂𝑁
The
Theswitching
switchingstate
statevector
vectorSScan
canbe
beexpressed
expressedas:
as:
2 2𝜋 4𝜋
S𝑆== 2 ((𝑆
S 𝑎++ e𝑒j 𝑗2π33S𝑆𝑏++e𝑒j 4π
𝑗
3 S𝑆
3 𝑐)
c)
(4)
(4)
33
a b

The space vector sum of the inverter output voltage is defined as:
The space vector sum of the inverter output voltage is defined as:
2 𝑗
2𝜋
𝑗
4𝜋
𝑣𝑖 =2 (𝑉𝑎𝑁 + 𝑒2π 3 𝑉𝑏𝑁 + 𝑒 3 𝑉𝑐𝑁 )
4π (5)
vi = 3(VaN + e 3 VbN + e 3 VcN )
j j
(5)
3
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21

Energies 2022, 15, 5489 4 of 20

where 𝑉𝑎𝑁 ,𝑉𝑏𝑁 , and 𝑉𝑐𝑁 are the voltages of each phase of the inverter output relative to
the neutral point 𝑁. Then, the relationship expression between the voltage vector and the
where VaN
switching , VbN
state VcN are the voltages of each phase of the inverter output relative to
, and is:
vector
the neutral point N. Then, the relationship expression between the voltage vector and the
switching state vector is: 𝑣𝑖 = 𝑉𝑑𝑐 𝑆 (6)

where V is the fixed and known DC busvivoltage.

dc
= Vdc S (6)
Considering
where all the
Vdc is the fixed possible
and knowncombinations
DC bus voltage.of control signals 𝑆𝑎 , 𝑆𝑏 , and 𝑆𝑐 , eight
switching states andall
Considering eight
thevoltage vectors
possible were obtained.
combinations Because
of control 𝑣0 =Sa𝑣,7 ,Sseven
signals b , anddifferent
Sc , eight
voltage vectors
switching were
states andgenerated, as shown
eight voltage vectorsinwere
Figure 2 [17]. Because v0 = v7 , seven different
obtained.
voltage vectors were generated, as shown in Figure 2 [17].
Im
v3 v2

v4 v1 Re
O
v0 , v7

v5 v6

Possiblevoltage
Figure2.2.Possible
Figure voltagevector
vectorgenerated
generatedbybyinverter.
inverter.

The filter inductance current i , the system output current i , and the output voltage
The filter inductance current if , fthe system output current io ,oand the output voltage
vc can be expressed using a vector representation method [18].
vc can be expressed using a vector representation method [18].
A mathematical model of the LC filter was established, which consisted of two parts.
A mathematical model of the LC filter was established, which consisted of two parts.
One was the dynamic vector equation of the filter inductor current, and the other was the
One was the dynamic vector equation of the filter inductor current, and the other was the
dynamic vector equation of the filter capacitor voltage.
dynamic
Thevector equation
filtering currentofvector
the filter capacitor
equation voltage. as:
is expressed
The filtering current vector equation is expressed as:
di f
L𝐿 𝑑𝑖𝑓 = =𝑣vi − vc (7)
(7)
dt 𝑖 − 𝑣𝑐
𝑑𝑡
Thefilter
The filtercapacitor
capacitorvoltage
voltagedynamic
dynamicvector
vectorequation
equationcan
canbebeexpressed
expressedas:
as:
𝑑𝑣𝑐
𝐶 dvc =
= i𝑖𝑓 − 𝑖 (8)
C 𝑑𝑡 f − i𝑜o (8)
dt
The two equations can be rewritten as a state–space system:
The two equations can be rewritten as a state–space system:
𝑑𝑥
dx = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝐵𝑣 + 𝐷𝑖 (9)
𝑑𝑡 = Ax + Bv𝑖i + Di𝑜o (9)
𝑖𝑓 0 −1/𝐿 dt 1/𝐿 0
where 𝑥 = [  ]; 𝐴 = [  ]; 𝐵 = [ ]; and  𝐷 = [−1/𝐶  ].
𝑣𝑐 i 1/𝐶 0 0−1/L 0 1/L 0

f
where =
Thexoutput ;A=
v of the system
1/C is the
;B=
0 output voltage
0
; and D = in the following
𝑣𝑐 shown −1/C
. expression:
c
The output of the system is the output 0 1]𝑥 vc shown in the following expression:
𝑣𝑐 = [voltage (10)
 
c = (ZOH)
For a sampling time 𝑇𝑠 , zero-order vhold 0 1 xdiscretization (12) was used to obtain
(10)
the prediction of the system’s behavior as follows:
For a sampling time Ts , zero-order hold (ZOH) discretization (12) was used to obtain
𝑥(𝑘 +behavior
the prediction of the system’s 1) = 𝐴𝑝 𝑥(𝑘) + 𝐵𝑝 𝑣𝑖 (𝑘) + 𝐷𝑝 𝑖𝑜 (𝑘)
as follows: (11)
𝑇 𝑇
where 𝐴𝑝 = 𝑒 𝐴𝑇𝑠 ; 𝐵𝑝 = ∫0 𝑠x𝑒(𝐴𝜏 k+𝐵𝑑𝜏1); =
andA p𝐷
x𝑝(k=
)+
𝑠
∫0 B𝑒p v𝐴𝜏i (𝐷𝑑𝜏
k) +. D p io (k) (11)
In order to predict the output
R Ts Aτ voltage 𝑣𝑐 at time
R Ts Aτ k + 1, it is necessary to know the
output A p = e AT
wherecurrent 𝑖𝑜s ; and
B p =to 0measure
e Bdτ;the capacitor
and D p = 0voltage e Ddτ. 𝑣𝑐 and the inductor current 𝑖𝑓
at timeInk. order to predict
However, theofoutput
the load a UPS voltage
is usually vcunknown,
at time k + so1,theit output
is necessary to 𝑖know
current the
𝑜 is not
output current io and to measure the capacitor voltage vc and the inductor current i f at
time k. However, the load of a UPS is usually unknown, so the output current io is not
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 5 of 20

measurable. The estimated value of load current can be calculated using the filter current
and output voltage.
measurable. It can be value
The estimated seen from
of loadEquation
current(8)
canthat
be the formulausing
calculated is: the filter current
and output voltage. It can be seen from Equation 𝐶 (8) that the formula is:
𝑖𝑜 (𝑘 − 1) = 𝑖𝐿 (𝑘 − 1) − (𝑣𝑐 (𝑘) − 𝑣𝑐 (𝑘 − 1)) (12)
𝑇C𝑠
io (k − 1) = i L (k − 1) − (vc (k ) − vc (k − 1)) (12)
For sufficiently small sampling times 𝑇𝑠 , it can Ts be supposed that the output load does
not change considerably in one sampling interval, and in that case, it can be assumed that
For sufficiently small sampling times Ts , it can be supposed that the output load does
𝑖𝑜 (𝑘 − 1) = 𝑖𝑜 (𝑘).
not change considerably in one sampling interval, and in that case, it can be assumed that
Figure 3 shows a block diagram of traditional finite set model predictive voltage con-
i o ( k − 1) = i o ( k ).
trol.
Figure 3 shows a block diagram of traditional finite set model predictive voltage control.

Predictive control Inverter LC filter

vc*(k) if L io
Cost S
vc(k) Predictive vc(k+1) Function
Load
if(k) Model
io(k)
C vc

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Traditionalmodel
Traditional modelpredictive
predictivecontrol
controlblock
blockdiagram
diagramofofUPS.
UPS.

2.2. Cost Function

2.2. Cost Function
The purpose of the cost function was to select a set of optimal switching states from
The purposepredicted
seven different of the costoutput
function was tofor
voltages select
the ainverter
set of optimal switching
in the next states
sampling fromto
period
seven different
minimize predicted between
the difference output voltages for theoutput
the predicted inverter in theand
voltage next sampling
the referenceperiod
voltagetoat
minimize the difference between the predicted output
k + 1. Therefore, the cost function g can be defined as: voltage and the reference voltage
at k + 1. Therefore, the cost function g can be defined as:
g = |v∗∗cα (k + 1) − vcα (k + 1)|22 + |v∗∗cβ (k + 1) − vcβ (k + 1)|22 (13)
g = |𝑣𝑐𝛼 (𝑘 + 1) − 𝑣𝑐𝛼 (𝑘 + 1)| + |𝑣𝑐𝛽 (𝑘 + 1) − 𝑣𝑐𝛽 (𝑘 + 1)| (13)
where𝑣𝑐𝛼
where v∗ ∗cα(𝑘
(k++1) and v𝑣∗cβ
1) and ∗ ( k + 1) are the reference voltages at the k + 1 time on the α-axis
𝑐𝛽 (𝑘 + 1) are the reference voltages at the k + 1 time on the α-
andand
axis β-axis
β-axis in the stationary
in the stationary rotating coordinate
rotating system,
coordinate system,respectively; and
respectively; and k+
vcα𝑣(𝑐𝛼 (𝑘1+) and
1)
vcβ (𝑣k𝑐𝛽+(𝑘1)+are
and 1) the
arepredicted
the predictedoutput voltage
output values
voltage for the
values and
for αthe β axes,
α and respectively.
β axes, respectively.

3.3.Model
Model Predictive
Predictive VoltageControl
Voltage ControlBased
BasedononESO
ESO
InIna traditional
a traditionalFCS-MPC,
FCS-MPC,the thedisturbance
disturbancecaused
causedby
bythe
themismatch
mismatchofofsystem
systemparam-
parame-
tersmakes
eters makesthe thepredicted
predictedvalue
valuedeviate
deviatefrom
fromthe
theexpected
expectedpredicted
predictedvalue,
value,which
whichaffects
affects
the control of the output voltage with a model predictive control strategy and
the control of the output voltage with a model predictive control strategy and increases increases
the
the voltage
voltage harmonic.
harmonic. InIn order
order toto overcome
overcome parameter-mismatch-induceddisturbance,
parameter-mismatch-induced disturbance,anan
ESO was used to estimate the disturbance and compensate for the estimated
ESO was used to estimate the disturbance and compensate for the estimated value valueininthe
the
prediction model.
prediction model.
3.1. Impact Analysis of Parameter Mismatch on Output Voltage
3.1. Impact Analysis of Parameter Mismatch on Output Voltage
To analyze the influence of the capacitance parameter value between the model and
To analyze the influence of the capacitance parameter value between the model and
the actual value on the output voltage, it was assumed that the capacitance in the model
the actual value on the output voltage, it was assumed that the capacitance in the model
was C0 , the actual capacitance was C1 , and the load was R. The voltage vector equation of
was 𝐶0 , the actual capacitance was 𝐶1 , and the load was R. The voltage vector equation of
the filter capacitor is rewritten as:
the filter capacitor is rewritten as:
dvc vc
CC 𝑑𝑣𝑐 =
= − 𝑣𝑐
i𝑖 f − (14)
(14)
dt
𝑑𝑡 𝑓
𝑅R
Formulas (7) and (14) were arranged, and the Laplace transform was performed to
obtain the output voltage of the model capacitor:
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 6 of 20

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

Formulas (7) and (14) were arranged, and the Laplace transform was performed to
obtain the output voltage of the model capacitor:

Rv𝑅𝑣i (𝑖s(𝑠)
)
vc1𝑣(s)(𝑠)
== 2
(15)
(15)
𝑐1 RLC0 s 𝑠+
𝑅𝐿𝐶 2+ Ls𝐿𝑠++R𝑅
0

The
The output
output voltage
voltage of
of the
the actual
actual capacitance
capacitance is:
is:

Rv𝑅𝑣(𝑖s(𝑠)
)
vc2𝑣(𝑐2 = = 𝑅𝐿𝐶 2𝑠 2i + 𝐿𝑠 + 𝑅
s)(𝑠) (16)
(16)
RLC1 s1 + Ls + R
The output
The output voltage
voltage error
error is:
is:
𝑅𝐿𝑣𝑖 (𝑠)𝑠 2 (𝐶0 − 𝐶1 )
∆𝑣𝑐 (𝑠) = 𝑣𝑐1 (𝑠) − 𝑣𝑐2 (𝑠) = RLv
2 )s2𝑅)(𝑅𝐿𝐶
i ( s+ (C0 − C𝑠1 2) + 𝐿𝑠 + 𝑅) (17)
∆vc (s) = vc1 (s) − vc2 (s) = (𝑅𝐿𝐶02𝑠 + 𝐿𝑠 1
2
(17)
( RLC0 s + Ls + R)( RLC1 s + Ls + R)
It can be seen from Equation (17) that the voltage error was related to the inverter
It can
output be seen
voltage and from Equation (17)
the capacitance that theerror.
parameter voltage error was
Assuming thatrelated to the
the output inverter
voltage of
output voltage
the inverter and the capacitance
is constant, the influence parameter error. Assuming
of the capacitance thaterror
parameter the output
on thevoltage
output
of the inverter
voltage is constant,
is discussed. the influence
Suppose of the capacitance
the inductance is 2.4 mF, the parameter
resistance error on Ω,
is 50 theand
output
the
voltage is discussed. Supposetrends
520V. The variation the inductance
of differentis capacitance
2.4 mF, the errors
resistance is 50 Ω,inand
are shown the
the fig-
voltage
ure below.is 520 V. The variation trends of different capacitance errors are shown in the
figureFigure
below.4 shows that the voltage error gradually increased with the frequency from 1
Hz toFigure
100 Hz, 4 shows
and thethat the voltage
voltage errorby
error caused gradually
the threeincreased with the frequency
actual capacitance parametersfrom
was
1obviously
Hz to 100different.
Hz, and When
the voltage error caused by the three actual capacitance
the frequency was greater than 1000 Hz, the three actual parameters
capac-
was obviously
itance parameters different. When
had almost the
the frequency
same was
effect on thegreater
voltagethan 1000 Hz, the three actual
error.
capacitance parameters had almost the same effect on the voltage error.

1.5 × 10−4
8 × 10−5
Amplitude

2 × 10−5

Frequency/Hz
Figure 4. Influence of capacitance parameter errors
errors on
on output
output voltage.
voltage.

3.2. Mathematical Model

3.2. Mathematical Model of
of Parameter
Parameter Mismatch
Mismatch
In
In the actual operation process, thecapacitance
the actual operation process, the capacitanceparameters
parametersare affected
are byby
affected thethe
external
exter-
environment, so the output voltage dynamic vector equation can be rewritten as:
nal environment, so the output voltage dynamic vector equation can be rewritten as:
dv𝑑𝑣
c 𝑐
(C(𝐶
++∆C
∆𝐶)
) ==i 𝑖𝑓−−io𝑖𝑜 (18)
dt𝑑𝑡 f
where C
where C is
is the
the nominal
nominal value
value of
of the
the capacitance
capacitance of
of the
the LC
LC filter, ΔC is
filter, ∆C is the
the variation
variation of
of the
the
capacitance, and 𝐶 + ∆𝐶 is the actual capacitance of the model.
capacitance, and C + ∆C is the actual capacitance of the model.
By transforming Equation (18) from a three-phase stationary abc coordinate system
to a two-phase stationary αβ coordinate system, it can be expressed as:
𝑑𝑣𝑐𝛼
(𝐶 + ∆𝐶) = 𝑖𝑓𝛼 − 𝑖𝑜𝛼
{ 𝑑𝑡 (19)
𝑑𝑣𝑐𝛽
(𝐶 + ∆𝐶) = 𝑖𝑓𝛽 − 𝑖𝑜𝛽
𝑑𝑡
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 7 of 20

By transforming Equation (18) from a three-phase stationary abc coordinate system to

a two-phase stationary αβ coordinate system, it can be expressed as:

(C + ∆C ) dvdtcα = i f α − ioα
(
dv (19)
(C + ∆C ) dtcβ = i f β − ioβ

The equation can be rewritten to:

dvcα ∆C dvcα
(
1
dt = Cifα − C1 ioα − C dt
dvcβ 1 ∆C dvcβ (20)
dt = Cifβ − C1 ioβ − C dt

3.3. Design of Extended-State Observer

A linear ESO enables a flexible definition of the total interference. In order to sim-
plify the analysis, the unknown part and parameter mismatch were regarded as the total
disturbance, and a predictive voltage model containing disturbance F was established:
dvcα
(
1
dt = C i f α + Fα
dvcβ 1
(21)
dt = C i f β + Fβ

Based on the filter output voltage model, two first-order linear ESOs were constructed
to observe the voltage and disturbance. Taking the construction of the a-axis extended-state
observer as an example, according to the ESO principle, Fα was taken as the extended variable:
   
z1 v̂
z= = cα (22)
z2 F̂α

Extended-state observers can be constructed as:


. eα = z1 − vcα
z1 = z2 + ni f α − β 01 eα (23)
.
z2 = − β 02 eα


where z1 and z2 are the estimated values of the state observer, and β 01 and β 02 are the error
feedback gains of the linear ESO.
β 01 and β 02 are the parameters of the observer, which can affect the rapidity and
stability of the observer. Therefore, selecting appropriate values can ensure the performance
of the observer. Equation (23) is expressed in matrix form as:
.
z = A1 z + B1 i f α + D1 (y − ŷ)
(24)
ŷ = C1 z
     
0 1 n β
, C1 = 1 0 , and D1 = 01 .
 
where A1 = , B1 =
0 0 0 β 02
According to the above equation, the characteristic equation of an ESO can be ex-
pressed as:
|sI − ( A1 − C1 D1 )| = s2 + β 01 s + β 02 (25)
where I is the unit matrix.
According to the bandwidth method, the characteristic root must be located at −ω0 of
the observer, and β 01 and β 02 are obtained as:

β 01 = 2ω0 , β 02 = ω02 (26)

Energies 2022, 15, 5489 8 of 20

ω0 is the bandwidth of the extended-state observer, which plays a decisive role in

the performance of the observer, so the design of ω0 is crucial. This paper discusses the
design of ω0 in the z domain. The discrete-time model of Equation (23) can be described
as follows: 

  (k) − vcα (k) 
eα (k) = v̂cα
v̂cα (k + 1) = v̂cα (k) + Ts F̂α (k) + ni f α (k) − β 1 eα (k) (27)

F̂α (k + 1) = F̂α (k ) − β 2 eα (k )


where β 1 = Ts β 01 and β 2 = Ts β 02 are the observer gains.

From the above formula, it can be derived that the transfer function of an ESO is:

v̂cα (z) β 1 z − β 1 + β 2 tsc

G (z) = = (28)
vcα (z) (z − 1)2 + β 1 z − β 1 + β 2 tsc

The characteristic equation is:

(z − 1)2 + β 1 z − β 1 + β 2 tsc = 0 (29)

Considering β 1 = 2ω0 tsc and β 2 = ω02 tsc from the above formula, we can infer that
the pole of G (z) is:
z1,2 = 1 − ω0 tsc (30)
ω0 can be obtained by the following equation:

1 − z1,2
ω0 = (31)
tsc

In general, if ω0 is too small or too large, it reduces the performance of the observer
and affects the robustness of the system [19]. In this paper, z1,2 was set to 0.15 [20], and
when the sampling time was 33 µs, the bandwidth ω0 of the ESO was about 26,000.

3.4. Predictive Control Model of ESO

The extended state observer used the measured output voltage and inductance current
to estimate parameter mismatch and unknown parts leading to disturbance. The estimated
value was transferred to a prediction model to solve the influence of the disturbance on the
performance of the control system.
According to the predicted voltage model including disturbance, the state–space
model in the second part can be rewritten into the following expression:

dx
= Ax + Bvi + EF (32)
dt
 
0
where E = .
1
Based on a linear ESO, the total interference in a system can be compensated, and the
discrete-time model can be described as:

x ( k + 1) = A p x ( k ) + B p v i ( k ) + E p F ( k ) (33)
RT
where E p = 0 s e Aτ Edτ.
A model predictive voltage control scheme based on an ESO is shown in Figure 5.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

Energies
Energies2022, 15,15,
2022, x FOR
5489 PEER REVIEW 9 of 2120
9 of

Predictive control Inverter LC filter

vcab*(k)
Predictive control Inverter if L LC filterio
vcab*(k) if io
Cost S L Load
ifab(k) v (k+1) Function
Predictive cab
Model vcab(k+1)
Cost S Load
vicab
fab(k) Predictive Function
C vc
vcab(k) Fa Model Fb
C vc
Fa Fb
ESO vcab(k) ab vc
ESO vcab(k) ababc vc
Figure 5. Predicted voltage control diagramabc
of three-phase inverter model based on ESO.
Figure
Figure 5. 5. Predicted
Predicted voltage
voltage control
control diagram
diagram ofof three-phaseinverter
three-phase invertermodel
modelbased
basedononESO.
ESO.
Figure 6 shows the control diagram of the extended-state observer. It can be seen
fromFigure
Figure that the
Figure6 6shows
shows thedisturbance
the control caused
control diagram
diagram of by
ofthe parameter
theextended-statemismatch
extended-state could
observer. It be
It can
observer. beestimated
can seen from
be seen
through
Figure
from the ESO.
6 that
Figure 6 the In Figure
thatdisturbance 7, a
the disturbance flow
caused chart of a control
by parameter
caused algorithm
mismatch
by parameter combining
could be
mismatch an
estimated
could extended-
through
be estimated
state
the observer
ESO. In and
Figure a finite-set
7, a flow model
chart predictive
of a control control is
algorithm presented,
combiningwhich
an
through the ESO. In Figure 7, a flow chart of a control algorithm combining an extended- was used
extended-state to
improve
observer parameter
and a robustness.
finite-set model predictive control is presented, which was
state observer and a finite-set model predictive control is presented, which was used to used to improve
parameter
improve robustness.
parameter robustness.
ifa

ni f a
vca  n 
 b 01 1
s
vˆca
 
vca   
bb0102 11
ss Fa vˆca
 
 b 02 1
s Fa
if b

ni f b
vcb  n  vˆcb
 b 01 1
s
vcb    

bb0102 11 Fb vˆcb
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW ss 10 of 21
 
 b 02 1
s
Fb
Figure 6. ESO control diagram.
Figure 6. ESO control diagram.
Figure 6. ESO control diagram.
measure vc (k ) i f (k )

ESO estimated interference value F (k )

predicted output voltage vc (k  1)

initialization gop  , i  0

i  i 1

calculate the cost function g (i )

i9

gop  min( g (i ))

apply switch status of the minimum cost function at the (k+1) instant

Figure 7.
Figure Flow diagram
7. Flow diagram of
of the
the proposed
proposed MPC
MPC control.
control.

4. Simulation and Experimental Results

4.1. Simulation Results
In order to verify the control effect of the proposed ESO-based model predictive volt-
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 10 of 20

4. Simulation and Experimental Results

4.1. Simulation Results
In order to verify the control effect of the proposed ESO-based model predictive
voltage control on the output voltage, a Matlab Simulink simulation model was built that
was verified under a pure resistive load and a nonlinear load, respectively. According to the
actual working conditions and load conditions of the UPS, the simulation and experimental
parameters [21] are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. System parameters.

Parameter Value
DC link voltage Vdc 520 V
Filter inductance L 2.4 mH
Filter capacitor C 40 µF
Sampling time Ts 33 µs

In this paper, the reference voltage amplitude was set to 220 V, and the frequency was
50 Hz. In the case of the pure resistance load, the output voltage and current waveforms of
the two methods when the load power was 3 KW are discussed.
Figures 8 and 9 show the comparison of the inverter output power qualities of the
conventional model predictive voltage control and the model predictive voltage control
based on ESO under pure resistance loads, respectively. From Figure 8, it can be seen that
there were obvious harmonics in the waveforms of output voltage and current without
the extended-state observer for disturbance measurement. From Figure 9, it can be11seen
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 21
that, when the extended-state observer was set, the output voltage and current waveforms
showed smooth, sinusoidal curves during stable operation.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Traditional model predictive control method: (a) output voltage waveform and (b) output
Figure 8. Traditional model predictive control method: (a) output voltage waveform and (b) output
current waveform.
current waveform.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Model predictive control method based on ESO: (a) output voltage waveform and (b) out-
Figure 9. Model predictive control method based on ESO: (a) output voltage waveform and (b) output
put current waveform.
current waveform.

Figure 10 shows the harmonic spectra of the output voltage of the UPS system with
two control methods. From Table 2 and Figure 10, it can be seen that voltage control strat-
egy with the extended-state observer had low output voltage harmonics, showing good
stability.
 (a) (b)
Figure 9. Model predictive control method based on ESO: (a) output voltage waveform and (b) out-
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 put current waveform. 11 of 20

Figure 10 shows the harmonic spectra of the output voltage of the UPS system with
two control methods.
Figure 10 showsFrom Table 2 and
the harmonic Figure
spectra of the10, it canvoltage
output be seenofthat voltage
the UPS control
system withstrat-
egytwo
with the extended-state
control methods. Fromobserver hadFigure
Table 2 and low output voltage
10, it can harmonics,
be seen showing
that voltage control good
strategy with the extended-state observer had low output voltage harmonics, showing
stability.
good stability.

50Hz 50Hz

(a) (b)
Figure 10.10.
Figure THD ofofoutput
THD outputvoltage
voltage for phaseA:
for phase A:(a)
(a)traditional
traditional model
model predictive
predictive control
control method
method and and
(b) (b)
model predictive control method based on ESO.
model predictive control method based on ESO.

Table
Table 2. 2. Comparisonof
Comparison oftwo
two methods
methods under
underdifferent
differentloads.
loads.
Traditional MPC
Traditional MPC MPC
MPCBased on ESO
Based on ESO
Pure Resistor
Pure ResistorLoad/W
Load/W
THD/% THD/%
THD/% THD/%
100
100 3.67
3.67 0.94 0.94
3000 3.63 0.88
30,000 2.54 0.91

Figure 11 shows the simulation results of verifying the dynamic performance of the
control system. The system changed from no load to a 3 KW load in 0.05 s, and from a
3 KW load to no load in 0.1 s. It can be found that the system had little effect on the output
voltage from no load to a load. During system unloading, the control system could control
the voltage to quickly reach a stable state. The simulation results showed that the finite-set
model predictive control had good dynamic performance.
In this paper, a diode bridge rectifier circuit was used to simulate a nonlinear load.
Figure 12 is the schematic diagram of the nonlinear load in the simulation model. In the
case of the nonlinear load, the output voltage and phase A current waveforms of the two
methods are discussed when the capacitance was 100 µF, and the resistance was 100 Ω.
Figure 13 shows the output voltage and current waveforms without an extended-
state observer under a nonlinear load. Figure 14 considers the output voltage and current
waveforms of the extended-state observer. It can be seen that the output current had obvious
distortion under the nonlinear load. The finite-set model predictive control method based
on ESO was effective for output voltage control under a nonlinear load.
 the voltage to quickly reach a stable state. The simulation results showed that the finite-
Figure
set model 11 shows
predictive the simulation
control results ofperformance.
had good dynamic verifying the dynamic performance of the
control system. The system changed from no load to a 3 KW load in 0.05 s, and from a 3
KW load to no load in 0.1 s. It can be found that the system had little effect on the output
voltage from no load to a load. During system unloading, the control system could control
Energies 2022, 15, 5489
the voltage to quickly reach a stable state. The simulation results showed that the 12 of 20
finite-
set model predictive control had good dynamic performance.

Figure 11. Dynamic simulation results: (a) traditional model predictive control method and (b)
model predictive control method based on ESO.

In this paper, a diode bridge rectifier circuit was used to simulate a nonlinear load.
Figure 12 is the schematic diagram of the nonlinear load in the simulation model. In the
case of the
Figure
Figure 11.nonlinear
11. Dynamic load, the output
Dynamicsimulation
simulation results:
results: voltage
(a)(a) and model
phase
traditional
traditional A current
model waveforms
predictive
predictive control
control of the
method
method and two
(b)and (b)
model
methods are discussed
model predictive
predictive when
controlcontrol the
methodmethod capacitance
based
based on ESO.on ESO. was 100 μF, and the resistance was 100 Ω.

In this paper, a diode bridge rectifier circuit was used to simulate a nonlinear load.
Figure 12 is the schematic diagram of the nonlinear load in the simulation model. In the
case of the nonlinear load, the output voltage and phase A current waveforms of the two
methods are discussed when the capacitance was 100 μF, and the resistance was 100 Ω.
L

C R

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

C R
Figure 13 shows the output voltage and current waveforms without an extended-
state observer under a nonlinear load. Figure 14 considers the output voltage and current
waveforms of the extended-state observer. It can be seen that the output current had ob-
vious distortion under the nonlinear load. The finite-set model predictive control method
based
Figure 12.on
Figure
ESO was
Nonlinear
12.
effective
load.
Nonlinear load.
for output voltage control under a nonlinear load.

Figure 12. Nonlinear load.

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Traditional model predictive control method: (a) output voltage waveform and (b) output
Figure 13. Traditional model predictive control method: (a) output voltage waveform and (b) output
current waveform.
current waveform.
 (a) (b)
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 13 of 20
Figure 13. Traditional model predictive control method: (a) output voltage waveform and (b) output
current waveform.

(a) (b)
Figure 14.
Figure 14. Model
Modelpredictive
predictivecontrol
controlmethod
methodbased
basedonon
ESO: (a)(a)
ESO: output voltage
output waveform
voltage andand
waveform (b)
output current waveform.
(b) output current waveform.

Table
Table33shows
showsthat,
that,forfor
thethe
model
modelpredictive voltage
predictive control
voltage method
control basedbased
method on ESO,
onwhen
ESO,
the
whenresistance was constant,
the resistance increasingincreasing
was constant, the load capacitance led to increased
the load capacitance harmonics;
led to increasedwhen
har-
the capacitance
monics; wascapacitance
when the constant andwas the constant
resistanceand
increased, the harmonics
the resistance decreased.
increased, the harmonics
decreased.
Table 3. Comparison of two methods under different nonlinear loads.

Table 3. Comparison of two methods under differentTraditional

nonlinear loads.
MPC MPC Based on ESO
Resistance/Ω Capacitance/µF
THD/% MPC
Traditional THD/%on ESO
MPC Based
Resistance/Ω Capacitance/μF
400 100 THD/%
3.40 THD/%
1.36
400
400 2000
100 3.06
3.40 1.45
1.36
300 500 2.81 1.60
400 2000 3.06 1.45
800 500 3.14 1.09
300 500 2.81 1.60
800
The performance 500 controller depends
of a predictive 3.14largely on the parameters
1.09 used
in the predictive model, considering the influence of parameter variation on the control
system.TheAperformance
change in theofcapacitance
a predictivevalue
controller depends largely
was introduced into theon the parameters
prediction model,used
that
in the predictive model, considering the influence
is, the actual values were C = 20 µF and C = 150 µF. of parameter variation on the control
system.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW A change
Figure 15 showsin the
the capacitance
control effectvalue
of thewas
UPSintroduced into on
control system theoutput
prediction model,
voltage 14 that
without
of 21
is, the actualthe
considering values were between
mismatch C = 20 μFthe and C = 150 μF.
capacitance model parameters and the actual values.
Figure Figure 15 shows
16 shows the control
the control effect effect
of theof thecontrol
UPS UPS control
systemsystem on output
on output voltagevoltage with-
considering
out
the considering
mismatch the mismatch
between the between
capacitance the capacitance model parameters and the actual
parameter mismatch was not considered,model parameters
resulting andinthe
in a decline theactual
qualityvalues. Com-
of the output
values.Figure
paring Figure15 16with
shows the control
Figure 16, it caneffect
be of the
seen thatUPS
the control system
disturbance on output
caused by voltage
parameter
voltage. The model predictive voltage control based on ESO had a significant inhibitory
considering
mismatch wasthenot
mismatch between the capacitance
considered, model parameters andoutput
the actual val-
effect on the disturbance causedresulting
by parameterin a decline
mismatch in the
andquality
improvedof the
the outputvoltage.
voltage
ues. model
The Comparing Figure
predictive 15 with
voltage Figure
control 16, iton
based can be had
ESO seenathat the disturbance
significant inhibitorycaused by
effect on
quality.
the disturbance caused by parameter mismatch and improved the output voltage quality.

(a) (b)
Figure 15.
Figure 15. Traditional
Traditional model
model predictive
predictive control
control method:
method: (a)
(a) when
when the
the actual
actual capacitance
capacitance was
was 20
20 μF,
µF,
the THD of the output voltage was 9.74%; (b) when the actual capacitance was 150 μF, the THD of
the THD of the output voltage was 9.74%; (b) when the actual capacitance was 150 µF, the THD of
the output voltage was 1.24%.
the output voltage was 1.24%.
 (a) (b)
Figure 15. Traditional model predictive control method: (a) when the actual capacitance was 20 μF,
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 14 of 20
the THD of the output voltage was 9.74%; (b) when the actual capacitance was 150 μF, the THD of
the output voltage was 1.24%.

(a) (b)
Figure16.
Figure 16. Model
Modelpredictive
predictivecontrol
controlmethod
methodbased
basedonon ESO:
ESO: (a)(a) when
when thethe actual
actual capacitance
capacitance waswas 20
20 µF,
μF, the THD of the output voltage was 2.96%; (b) when the actual capacitance was 150 μF, the THD
the THD of the output voltage was 2.96%; (b) when the actual capacitance was 150 µF, the THD of
of the output voltage was 0.43%.
the output voltage was 0.43%.

inductance parameters were mismatched

When the inductance mismatched and and the
the actual
actual inductance
inductance was
was
𝐿 = 0.75𝐿, the suppression effects of the two control methods on the inductance
L11 0.75L, the suppression effects of the two control methods on the inductance mismatch mis-
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWmatch
were were compared,
compared, as shown asin
shown
Figurein17.
Figure 17. Theshow
The results results
thatshow 15 of 21
that the extended-state
the extended-state observer
observer
could could compensate
compensate for the disturbance
for the disturbance caused bycaused by inductance
inductance mismatchmismatch and
and could could
reduce
reduce
the the harmonics
harmonics of thevoltage.
of the output output voltage.

(a) (b)
Figure 17. THD of output voltage for phase A under the condition of mismatched inductance pa-
Figure 17. THD of output voltage for phase A under the condition of mismatched inductance
rameters: (a) traditional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method
parameters: (a) traditional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method
based on ESO.
based on ESO.
Figure
Figure 18
18 shows the output
shows the outputvoltage
voltagewaveform
waveformofofparameter
parameter mismatch
mismatch when
when thethe ac-
actual
tual inductance
inductance L1 =𝐿0.75L
was was 1 = 0.75𝐿
and theandactual
the actual capacitance
capacitance was Cwas1 = 𝐶
2C.
1 = 2𝐶.
The The
total total har-
harmonic
monic distortion
distortion of the voltage
of the output output voltage
obtainedobtained
using theusing the traditional
traditional method wasmethod was
2.62%, 2.62%,
while the
while the method proposed in this paper yielded 0.66%, and the difference
method proposed in this paper yielded 0.66%, and the difference between them was 1.96%.between them
was 1.96%. The
The results showresults show
that the that themethod
proposed proposed method
could could compensate
compensate well for the well for the
disturbance
disturbance caused bymismatch
caused by parameter parameter tomismatch to improve
improve the quality ofthe
thequality
outputofvoltage.
the output voltage.
 Figure 18 shows the output voltage waveform of parameter mismatch when the ac-
tual inductance was 𝐿1 = 0.75𝐿 and the actual capacitance was 𝐶1 = 2𝐶. The total har-
monic distortion of the output voltage obtained using the traditional method was 2.62%,
while the method proposed in this paper yielded 0.66%, and the difference between them
Energies 2022, 15, 5489
was 1.96%. The results show that the proposed method could compensate well for the
15 of 20
disturbance caused by parameter mismatch to improve the quality of the output voltage.

(a) (b)
Figure 18. Simulation
Figure 18. resultsofof
Simulation results output
output voltage
voltage: (a):traditional
(a) traditional model
model predictive
predictive control
control method
method and
and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.
(b)
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
model predictive control method based on ESO. 16 of 21
In
In Figure
Figure 19,
19, Fa is the value of phase A, which was obtained through the following following
steps.
steps. First, the disturbance
disturbancevaluevalueobtained
obtainedwith
withthe
theESO
ESO waswas multiplied
multiplied byby 𝑇𝑠 and
Ts and thenthen
put
through
put Clark
through inverse
Clark transformation.
inverse Figure
transformation. 19a
Figure shows
19a the
shows waveform
the of
waveform Fa
could be used as an output current sensor when the capacitance parameters of the predic- and
of the
Fa actual
and the
measured
actual
tive model current
measured of phase A. The
current ofIt phase
were matched. results
can be A. The
seen show that
results
from the
show
Figure extended-state
19bthat
thatthe observer
the extended-state could
waveform of Faobserver be
and the
used as an of
waveform output currentAsensor
the phase outputwhen the capacitance
current were different parameters
in phaseofand
theamplitude
predictive model
at the
were matched. It can be seen from Figure 19b that the waveform of Fa and
same time. In the case of capacitor parameter mismatch, the extended-state observer did the waveform
of the
not phase
obtain theAoutput
outputcurrent
currentofwere different
phase A, but in phase
it did and amplitude
compensate for theatcapacitor
the sameparame-
time. In
the case of
ter mismatch.capacitor parameter mismatch, the extended-state observer did not obtain the
output current of phase A, but it did compensate for the capacitor parameter mismatch.

(a) (b)
Figure 19. Simulation waveforms of Fa and ioa: (a) capacitance parameters were not mismatched;
Figure 19. Simulation waveforms of Fa and ioa: (a) capacitance parameters were not mismatched;
(b) capacitor parameters were mismatched.
(b) capacitor parameters were mismatched.

4.2.
4.2. Experimental
Experimental Results
Results
Figure
Figure20
20isisa adiagram
diagramof of
thethe
experimental
experimentalequipment, which
equipment, included
which a StarSim
included real-
a StarSim
time simulator
real-time and aand
simulator DSP controller;
a DSP the real-time
controller; simulator
the real-time and and
simulator the controller were
the controller in-
were
terconnected with a real, physical
interconnected with a real, physical IO.IO.
In order to verify the method proposed in this paper, dynamic experiments were
carried out with the Yuankuan experimental platform to explore the dynamic performance
and stability of the method and to compare the parameter robustness with a traditional
finite-set model predictive control method. The load in the experimental tests was 3 KW.
Figure 21 shows the dynamic waveform of the output current when the load and
output voltage changed.
StarSim
Real Time Simulator

Oscilloscope I/O Junction Box

 Figure 19. Simulation waveforms of Fa and ioa: (a) capacitance parameters were not mismatched;
(b) capacitor parameters were mismatched.

4.2. Experimental Results

Figure 20 is a diagram of the experimental equipment, which included a StarSim real-
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 16 of 20
time simulator and a DSP controller; the real-time simulator and the controller were in-
terconnected with a real, physical IO.

StarSim
Real Time Simulator

Oscilloscope I/O Junction Box

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

Figure20.
Figure 20. Experimental
Experimental equipment.
equipment.

In order to verify the method proposed in this paper, dynamic experiments were car-
ried out with the YuankuanIoa experimental
Iob Ioc platform to explore the dynamic performance
and stability of the method and to compare the parameter robustness with a traditional
finite-set model predictive control method. The load in the experimental tests was 3 KW.
Figure 21 shows the dynamic waveform of the output current when the load and
output
-
voltage changed.
-
-
-
-

Figure 21. Dynamic waveform of output current.

Figure
Figure 22
22 shows
shows the
the waveforms
waveforms of of the output voltage
the output and current
voltage and current during
during the
the system
system
load-switching
load-switching process. The load was changed from zero to 3 KW at 0.05 s, and it
process. The load was changed from zero to 3 KW at 0.05 s, and it was
was
restored to zero at 0.1 s. The system was connected to the load in 0.05 s,
restored to zero at 0.1 s. The system was connected to the load in 0.05 s, and the voltage and the voltage
did
did not
not change. After 0.1
change. After 0.1 s,
s, the
the system
system became
became no-load,
no-load, and
and thethe output
output voltage
voltage presented
presented
a
a short adjustment process. From the experimental results, it can be observed thatthat
short adjustment process. From the experimental results, it can be observed the
the dy-
dynamic performance of the method proposed in this paper was better than the traditional
namic performance of the method proposed in this paper was better than the traditional
method for the process of system unloading.
method for the process of system unloading.
Figure 23 shows the waveforms of the output voltage and phase A output current
of the system under a nonlinear load. The experimental results show that the output
Vca Vcb Vcc
Vca Vcb Vcc voltage was sinusoidal, and the output current waveform was not sinusoidal under a
nonlinear load.
When the capacitance parameters were mismatched, the actual capacitance was
C1 = 0.5C. Figure 24 shows the experimental waveforms of the output voltage. Through
harmonic analysis, it was found -that the output voltage THD of the traditional control
- method was 5.94%, and the method - proposed in this paper had a THD of 3.34%, which
means the quality of the output voltage
- was better than that of the traditional method.
-
-
Figure 25 shows the output voltage waveforms with an actual inductance of 1.8 mH,
- while Figure 26 shows the -
harmonic analysis of the phase A output voltage from 0.06 to
ioa iobioc ioaiobioc
0.08 s, which shows that this method could also suppress the interference caused by the
mismatch of inductance parameters.
Figure 27 shows the output voltage waveforms and the THD analysis of the parameter
mismatch when the actual inductance was L1 = 0.75L and the actual capacitance was
-
C1 = 2C. The total harmonic distortion -
is shown in the figure.
- -
- -
- -
- -

Energies 2022, 15, 5489
Figure 22 shows the waveforms of the output voltage and current during the system
load-switching process. The load was changed from zero to 3 KW at 0.05 s, and it was
restored to zero at 0.1 s. The system was connected to the load in 0.05 s, and the voltage
did not change. After 0.1 s, the system became no-load, and the output voltage presented
a short adjustment process. From the experimental results, it can be observed that the dy-
namic performance of the method proposed in this paper was better than the traditional
17 of 20
method for the process of system unloading.

Vca Vcb Vcc

Vca Vcb Vcc

-
- -
-
-
-
- -
ioa iobioc ioaiobioc

- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

(a) (b)
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
Figure 22. Experimental results of dynamic load changes: (a) traditional model predictive control
Figure 22. Experimental results of dynamic load changes: (a) traditional model predictive control
method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.
method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.

Vca Vcb Vcc Figure 23 shows the waveforms of the output voltage and phase A output current of
Vca Vcb Vcc
the system under a nonlinear load. The experimental results show that the output voltage
was sinusoidal, and the output current waveform was not sinusoidal under a nonlinear
load.

- -

- -
- -
ioa ioa

- -

- -

- -

(a) (b)
Figure 23. Experimental waveforms of nonlinear load: (a) traditional model predictive control
Figure 23. Experimental waveforms of nonlinear load: (a) traditional model predictive control
method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.
method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.

When the capacitance parameters were mismatched, the actual capacitance was 𝐶1 =
0.5𝐶. Figure 24 shows the experimental waveforms of the output voltage. Through har-
monic analysis, it was found that the output voltage THD of the traditional control
method was 5.94%, and the method proposed in this paper had a THD of 3.34%, which
means the quality of the output voltage was better than that of the traditional method.

Vca Vcb Vcc Vca Vcb Vcc

 method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.

When the capacitance parameters were mismatched, the actual capacitance was 𝐶1 =
0.5𝐶. Figure 24 shows the experimental waveforms of the output voltage. Through har-
monic analysis, it was found that the output voltage THD of the traditional control
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 method was 5.94%, and the method proposed in this paper had a THD of 3.34%, which 18 of 20
means the quality of the output voltage was better than that of the traditional method.

Vca Vcb Vcc Vca Vcb Vcc

- -
- -
- -
- -
- -

(a) (b)
Energies 2022,
Energies 2022, 15,
15, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 19 of
19 of 21
21
Figure 24. Experimental results of output voltage with mismatched capacitance parameters: (a) tra-
Figure 24. Experimental results of output voltage with mismatched capacitance parameters: (a) tradi-
ditional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.
tional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.
Figure 25 shows the output voltage waveforms with an actual inductance of 1.8 mH,
VVcaca VVcb
cb VVcccc VVcaca VVcbcb VVcccc
while Figure 26 shows the harmonic analysis of the phase A output voltage from 0.06 to
0.08 s, which shows that this method could also suppress the interference caused by the
mismatch of inductance parameters.

-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --

(a) (b)
Figure 25. Experimental waveforms of output voltage with inductance parameter mismatch: (a) tra-
Figure Experimental
25. model
ditional waveforms
predictive of output
control method voltage
and (b) model with inductance
predictive parameter
control method mismatch:
based on ESO. (a) tra-
ditional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.

(a) (b)
Figure 26. THD analysis of experimental waveforms in case of inductance parameter mismatch: (a)
Figure
Figure 26.26.THD
THD analysis
analysisofofexperimental waveforms
experimental in case
waveforms inofcase
inductance parameter
of inductance mismatch:mismatch:
parameter (a)
traditional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.
(a) traditional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.
Figure 27 shows the output voltage waveforms and the THD analysis of the param-
eter mismatch when the actual inductance was 𝐿11 = 0.75𝐿 and the actual capacitance was
𝐶11 = 2𝐶. The total harmonic distortion is shown in the figure.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 21
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 19 of 20

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 27.
27. Experimental
Experimentalresults
resultsofofparameter
parametermismatch
mismatchcaused by by
caused inductance andand
inductance capacitance: (a)
capacitance:
traditional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method based on ESO.
(a) traditional model predictive control method and (b) model predictive control method based
on ESO.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a traditional model predictive voltage control method and an ESO-
basedInmodel predictive
this paper, voltage
a traditional control
model method
predictive werecontrol
voltage compared.
methodTheandcontrol perfor-
an ESO-based
mances of the twovoltage
model predictive methods on themethod
control output voltage under a pure
were compared. The resistive load and a non-
control performances of
linear
the two load were analyzed,
methods and voltage
on the output the output voltage
under a purewaveforms andand
resistive load harmonic distortion
a nonlinear load
distribution
were analyzed, whenandthe
thefilter
output capacitor
voltageparameters
waveformschanged were discussed.
and harmonic The results
distortion distribution
showed
when thethat thecapacitor
filter proposed extended-state
parameters observer
changed was combined
were discussed. with a showed
The results finite-setthat
model
the
predictive control to realize
proposed extended-state the non-offset
observer tracking
was combined control
with of a UPS
a finite-set system
model and to control
predictive reduce
to realize
the harmonic thedistortion
non-offsetoftracking
the outputcontrol of aThe
voltage. UPS system and to
extended-state reducecould
observer the harmonic
compen-
distortion
sate for theofinfluences
the outputofvoltage. The extended-state
model parameter mismatchobserver
and loadcould compensate
current and reduced for the
influences
use of model
of current parameter
sensors, improving mismatch and loadofcurrent
the robustness and reduced
the control system. the use of current
sensors, improving the robustness of the control system.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.H. and S.Z.; data curation, G.H. and S.Z.; formal anal-
ysis,
AuthorG.H. and S.Z.; funding
Contributions: acquisition, G.H.;G.H.
Conceptualization, investigation,
and S.Z.; Y.D.;
data methodology,
curation, G.H.G.H.andand S.Z.;
S.Z.; pro-
formal
ject administration,
analysis, G.H.;
G.H. and S.Z.; resources,
funding G.H.; software,
acquisition, G.H. and S.Z.;
G.H.; investigation, supervision,
Y.D.; methodology,G.H.;
G.H.validation,
and S.Z.;
S.Z. andadministration,
project W.Z.; visualization,
G.H.; G.L.; writing—original
resources, draft,
G.H.; software, G.H.
G.H. andand S.Z.;
S.Z.; writing—review
supervision, and edit-
G.H.; validation,
ing, G.H.W.Z.;
S.Z. and and S.Z. All authors
visualization, have
G.L.; read and agreed
writing—original to the
draft, published
G.H. and S.Z.;version of the manuscript.
writing—review and editing,
G.H. and S.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Natural Science Fund Project of Henan Province, China
(grant
Funding:number 222300420400).
This research The project
was funded name was
by the Natural underFund
Science newProject
energy-inverter
of Henan grid system
Province, DC
China
component suppression
(grant number research,
222300420400). Theand the project
project name host
was was
underHenew
Guofeng.
energy-inverter grid system DC
component suppression research, and the project host was He Guofeng.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this research study are available in this article.
Energies 2022, 15, 5489 20 of 20

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this research study are available in this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Shahzad, D.; Pervaiz, S.; Zaffar, N.A.; Afridi, K.K. GaN-based high-power-density AC–DC–AC converter for single-phase
transformerless online uninterruptible power supply. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2021, 36, 13968–13984. [CrossRef]
2. Han, Y.; He, G.; Fan, X.; Zhao, Q.; Shen, H. Design and analysis of improved ADRC controller for multiple grid-connected
photovoltaic inverters. Mod. Phys. Lett. B 2018, 32, 34–36. [CrossRef]
3. Prabhakaran, P.; Krishna, S.M.; Febin, D.J.L.; Perumal, T. A novel PR controller with improved performance for single-phase UPS
inverter. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th Biennial International Conference on Nascent Technologies in Engineering, NaviMumbai,
India, 15–16 January 2021.
4. Li, J.; Sun, Y.; Li, X.; Xie, X.; Lin, J.; Su, M. Observer-based adaptive control for single-phase UPS inverter under nonlinear load.
IEEE Trans. Trans. Electr. 2022, 8, 2785–2796. [CrossRef]
5. Caseiro, L.M.A.; Mendes, A.M.S.; Cruz, S.M.A. Cooperative and dynamically weighted model predictive control of a 3-Level
uninterruptible power supply with improved performance and dynamic response. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2020, 67, 4934–4945.
[CrossRef]
6. Na, Z.; Kaitao, Z.; Hui, Z.; Xi, X. Model predictive control of energy storage converter with feedback correction. In Proceedings of
the 2017 Chinese Automation Congress, Jinan, China, 20–22 October 2017.
7. Qin, G.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, L. Finite control set model predictive control based on three-phase four-leg grid-connected inverters.
In Proceedings of the 2020 35th Youth Academic Annual Conference of Chinese Association of Automation, Zhanjiang, China,
16–18 October 2020.
8. Chen, Z.; Qiu, J. Adjacent-vector-based model predictive control for permanent magnet synchronous motors with full model
estimation. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2022. [CrossRef]
9. Cortes, P.; Rodriguez, J.; Vazquez, S.; Franquelo, L.G. Predictive control of a three-phase UPS inverter using two steps prediction
horizon. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, Via del Mar, Chile, 14–17 March 2010.
10. Chan, R.; Kim, K.H.; Park, J.Y.; Kwak, S.S. Simplified model predictive control with preselection technique for reduction of
calculation burden in 3-Level 4-leg NPC inverter. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and
Exposition, New Orleans, LA, USA, 15–19 March 2020.
11. Zhang, H.; Ma, Z.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Liao, Z.; Lin, G. Multivariable sequential model predictive control of LCL-type grid
connected inverter. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Predictive Control of Electrical Drives and
Power Electronics, Jinan, China, 20–22 November 2021.
12. Chun, H.; Jianhui, H.; Yong, L. Robust predictive current control for PMSM drives with parameter mismatch. In Proceedings
of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Predictive Control of Electrical Drives and Power Electronics, Jinan, China,
20–22 November 2021.
13. Yuan, X.; Xie, S.; Chen, J.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, C.; Lee, C.H.T. An enhanced deadbeat predictive current control of SPMSM with
linear disturbance observer. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2022. [CrossRef]
14. He, C.; Hu, J.; Ran, X. Finite control set model predictive current control for PMSM based on extended state observer. In
Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications, Xi’an, China, 19–21 June 2019.
15. Danayiyen, Y.; Lee, K.; Choi, M.; Lee, Y.I. Model Predictive Control of Uninterruptible Power Supply with Robust Disturbance
Observer. Energies 2019, 12, 2871. [CrossRef]
16. Le, V.-T.; Lee, H.-H. Robust finite-control-set model predictive control for voltage source inverters against LC-filter parameter
mismatch and variation. J. Power Electron. 2022, 22, 406–419. [CrossRef]
17. Mohamed, I.; Zaid, S.; Elyazeed, M.A.; Elsayed, H. Improved model predictive control for three-phase inverter with output LC
filter. Int. J. Model. Identif. Control 2015, 23, 371. [CrossRef]
18. Mohamed, I.S.; Zaid, S.A.; Abu-Elyazeed, M.F.; Elsayed, H.M. Classical methods and model predictive control of three-phase
inverter with output LC filter for UPS applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Control, Decision and
Information Technologies, Hammamet, Tunisia, 23 December 2013.
19. Xu, Q.; Sun, M.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, D. Analysis and design of the extended state observer using internal mode control. In
Proceedings of the 32nd Chinese Control Conference, Xi’an, China, 26–28 July 2013.
20. Zhang, Y.; Jin, J.; Huang, L. Model-free predictive current control of PMSM drives based on extended state observer using
ultralocal model. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2021, 68, 993–1003. [CrossRef]
21. Mohamed, I.S.; Rovetta, S.; Do, T.D.; Dragicević, T.; Diab, A.A.Z. A neural-network-based model predictive control of three-phase
inverter with an output LC filter. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 124737–124749. [CrossRef]