Received October 7, 2019, accepted October 22, 2019, date of publication October 29, 2019, date of current version

November 11, 2019.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2950107

Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for

NPC Grid-Connected Inverter
YUNJUN YU 1, 2 , (Member, IEEE), AND XIANZHENG WANG1
1 School of Information Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China
2 AI Institute, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China

Corresponding author: Yunjun Yu (yuyunjun@ncu.edu.cn)

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61563034, and in part by the
International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China under Grant 2014DFG72240.

ABSTRACT Aiming at improving the quality of output current when the inverter is connected to the grid,
this paper proposes a control strategy of neutral point clamped (NPC) grid-connected inverter based on radial
basis function neural network (RBFNN) multi-step predictive control. Firstly, the predictive control model
for output current of NPC inverter is constructed by αβ coordinate transformation. Then the future values of
output current are predicted for each voltage vectors, using the RBFNN prediction model. After the predicted
values are obtained, a cost function f is calculated for each voltage vectors and the optimal voltage vector
which minimizes cost function is selected. The switch state corresponding to the optimal voltage vector is
applied to the inverter in the next sampling period. Thereby the control of grid-connected output current can
be achieved. The simulation results show that the RBFNN multi-step predictive control method improves
the capability of current tracking and reduces the harmonic rate of output current. The proposed method can
balance output current under the condition of grid voltage imbalance.

INDEX TERMS Inverter, RBF neural network, predictive control, optimal voltage vector, three-phase
current balance.

I. INTRODUCTION such as load imbalance and short-circuit fault, which will

The inverter is a bridge connecting new energy generation
(such as photovoltaic power generation, wind power gener-
ation, etc.) with the grid or load, and it is a key device of
the distributed generation system. The control performance of
the inverter directly affects the operation of entire distributed
generation system. For example, in the field of photovoltaic
power generation, direct current generated by photovoltaic
panels needs to be converted into high-quality alternating
current before they can be connected to the grid, so the control
of inverter occupies an extremely important position in the
new energy field [1]–[3].
Compared with the two-level inverter, the three-level
inverter [4], [5] has outstanding advantages of low loss of
power tube switching device, small voltage change rate, low
harmonic distortion of grid-connected current, and it can
work at conditions of low switching frequency and high
voltage. Therefore, this paper focuses on the control problem
of NPC inverter [6]. During actual operation of the system,
voltage of the distribution network is affected by factors,
The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and
approving it for publication was Kathiravan Srinivasan
cause a three-phase output current of inverter to be unbal-
anced. It will further aggravate the three-phase current imbal-
ance in the low-voltage distribution network. Unbalanced
three-phase current can affect the power supply efficiency of
distribution transformers and even threaten the safe operation
of electrical equipment. Aiming at the problem of current
output quality, many solutions have emerged so far. The
traditional PI-based control strategy [7] cannot effectively
improve the dynamic response of the system while effectively
suppressing the fluctuations and impacts caused by large
DC bus voltage, which makes the system less robust. And
the output performance of the inverter is not ideal. There
are also some nonlinear control methods, such as hysteresis
control. Although these methods can output good current
waveform, the switching frequency is not fixed, which makes
the design of filter difficult. In recent years, new control
methods have been proposed, such as deadbeat control, fuzzy
control [8], adaptive dynamic programming (ADP) [9], auto
disturbance rejection control (ADRC) [10], and model pre-
dictive control (MPC). These advanced control methods can
improve the control performance of the inverter. An opti-
. mized ADRC method is applied to the DC-DC converter.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
157756 VOLUME 7, 2019
Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter
The experimental results show that the proposed control strat-
egy can achieve better dynamic characteristics and improve
the robustness of the system under various uncertain external
disturbances. However, there are more tunable parameters in
the ADRC method, and tuning of the parameters is com-
plicated [11]. Fuzzy control has been used in multi-level
photovoltaic inverters. However, the design method of the
system is based on experience, which makes the method
have certain limitations. The stability of control needs to be
improved [12]. A new control strategy for NPC inverter based
on finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC)
is proposed. Under the premise of not affecting the control
performance, the problem of large computational complexity
of the traditional FCS-MPC method is effectively solved [13].
MPC [14], [15] is a closed-loop optimization control strat-
egy based on model. Compared with PI control, hysteresis
control, and other control methods, MPC has advantages of
fast dynamic response, strong robustness, explicit process-
ing of nonlinear constraints, no current inner loop control
and no related parameter tuning. It has been widely used
in the control of the inverter due to these outstanding capa-
bilities. The essence of MPC optimization algorithm is a
finite time-domain optimization algorithm based on model.
Typical control algorithms (such as dynamic matrix control,
generalized predictive control, etc.) use linear models for
prediction. However, the mathematical model of nonlinear
system has problems of structure specificity, difficulty in
identification, and complicated processing. In practice, typi-
cal control algorithms are rarely used to solve nonlinear prob-
lems. The use of MPC in the field of control of photovoltaic
inverter has been studied [16]–[20]. Because neural network
can fully approximate complex nonlinear systems, it has
the characteristics of learning and adapting to the dynamic
characteristics of uncertain systems, strong robustness and
fault tolerance. So it has become a powerful tool for predictive
control [21]–[23]. Some literatures choose BP neural network
as the predictive model [24]. Although BP neural network
is the most mature network, it also has the disadvantages
of being easily trapped in local minimum values and low
training efficiency. The RBF neural network overcomes the
problem of the BP network to a certain extent. The RBF
neural network can calculate future prediction value faster
and improve the operation speed of MPC. Many scholars have
used RBF neural networks in MPC and good control effects
have been achieved [25], [26].
This paper proposes a current control strategy for NPC
grid-connected inverter based on RBFNN multi-step predic-
tive control. Firstly, the mathematical model of NPC inverter
is established, and the current characteristics of the inverter
are analyzed. The predictive control model for output current
of NPC inverter is constructed by αβ coordinate transfor-
mation. All future values of output current are predicted for
each voltage vector, using the RBFNN predictive model. The
optimal voltage vector is selected from all voltage vectors
according to the error between the reference value and pre-
dicted value in the evaluation function f . And the switch state
VOLUME 7, 2019
corresponding to the optimal voltage vector is applied to the
next sampling period of the inverter. By cyclically calling
the predictive control model, the control of output current at
future time can be achieved. The optimal switching state can
be obtained after one αβ coordinate transformation. It reduces
the calculation amount of the system and is easy to imple-
ment. The RBFNN multi-step predictive control method can
make the system have good performance of current tracking
and reduce the harmonic rate of output current. And output
current can be balanced under the condition of grid voltage
imbalance. The simulation results of RBFNN multi-step pre-
dictive control and the traditional MPC method are compared
and analyzed. The feasibility and effectiveness of the RBFNN
multi-step predictive control method are verified.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF NPC INVERTER
The structure of the NPC inverter is shown in Fig.1. The
NPC inverter has three-phase bridge arms, and each phase
of the bridge arms has four sets of switching elements. Due
to the presence of clamping diodes, three switching states
of +1, 0 and -1 for each phase have been defined. The
control signals (Sa , Sb , Sc ) determine the switching state on
three-phase bridge arms of inverter:

 +1 (p) , Sx1 and Sx2 are turned on

Sx = 0 (o) , Sx2 and Sx3 are turned on
−1 (n) , Sx3 and Sx4 are turned on


where, x represents three phases of a, b, c.
FIGURE 1. The structure of NPC inverter.
The output levels of p, o, n in each phase respectively
produce output voltage of udc /2, 0, −udc /2 with respect to the
neutral point o. According to different switch combinations of
NPC inverter, a total of 33 = 27 different switch states can
be generated. Due to the redundancy of some switch combi-
nations, the inverter outputs 19 different voltage vectors [13].
For example, the voltage vector u0 can be made by three states
(+1, +1, +1), (0, 0, 0) and (-1, -1, -1). These voltage vectors
are shown in Fig.2.
The output voltage vector of inverter is:
2  
u= udc Sa + µSb + µ2 Sc (1)
3
157757
 Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter

external environment and acts as a data transmission. The sec-

ond layer is hidden layer, and its role is to perform a nonlinear
transformation from the input space to the hidden layer space.
The number of hidden layer nodes depends on needs of the
problem described. The transformation function (radial basis
function) of neurons in the hidden layer is a non-negative
linear function that is radially symmetric and attenuated to the
center point. It is a local response function. The third layer is
the output layer, which is a linear combination of outputs of
the hidden layer.
The most commonly used radial basis function in RBFNN
is the Gaussian kernel function, and the output of i-th hidden
layer is given by
!
kX − ci k2
Ri (X − ci ) = exp − i= 1, 2, . . . ,p (8)
2σi2
where, X is an n-dimensional input vector. ci is the center
FIGURE 2. Voltage vectors generated by NPC inverter. of i-th Gaussian function and it is a vector having the same
dimension as the input vector X . σi is the variance of Gaussian
kernel function. n and p are the number of neurons in the input
2πj
where, µ = e 3 . layer and the hidden layer, respectively.
      The RBFNN prediction model is shown in Fig.3.
uan Sa1 Sa2
 ubn  = udc1  Sb1  + udc2  Sb2  (2)
ucn Sc1 Sc2
where, udc1 and udc2 are DC side capacitor voltages.
Assuming three-phase grid voltage balance, the grid-
connected output current ig and the grid voltage eg can be
obtained as following:
2 
ig = iga + µigb + µ2 igc (3)
3
2 
eg = ega + µegb + µ2 egc (4)
3
The dynamic vector of output current of inverter is defined
as follows:
dig 1
FIGURE 3. RBFNN model.
= u − eg − Rs ig (5)
dt Ls
The output of the j-th neuron in output layer can be
The coordinate transformation of abc→ αβ is defined as obtained from the structure of RBFNN:
follows: p
!
X − kX − ci k2
1 1 yj = wi,j exp j= 1, 2, . . . ,m (9)
  
1 − − a 2σi2
α
 
2 √2 √2  i=1
=  b (6)
β 3 3 3 
where, wi,j is the connection weight between i-th unit of
0 − c
2 2 hidden layer and j-th unit of output layer. m is the number of
The matrix form of equation (5) is obtained: neurons in output layer. yj is the output value of j-th neuron

d igα

1
      of output layer.
uα egα igα
= − − Rs (7) The historical control variables (egα (k) , egβ (k),
dt igβ Ls uβ egβ igβ
egα (k−1), · · ·, egβ (k − p+1)) of the model and historical out-
III. RBFNN MULTI-STEP PREDICTIVE CONTROL put information (igα (k),igβ (k), igα (k−1), · · · ,igβ (k − r+1))
A. RBFNN ONE-STEP PREDICTION MODEL together as an input to the RBFNN. After training, RBFNN
predicts the output of ig (k + 1) of next moment. Thereby
The RBFNN [27]–[29] can approximate nonlinear func-
one-step prediction of the model can be achieved.
tions with arbitrary precision. The network has capabilities
The predicted value of next moment of the nonlinear sys-
of global optimal and global approximation. RBFNN is a
tem can be described as follows:
three-layer forward neural network with a hidden layer. The
first layer is input layer, which connects the network to the ig (k + 1) = gfor,i (b (k) , u(k)) (10)

157758 VOLUME 7, 2019

Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter

Xl
where, ig (k + 1) is the predicted value of the system at g (w) = ej (w)∇ 2 ej (w) (16)
j=1
moment k+1. b (k) is the historical output vector, and
T where, J (w) is the matrix of Jacobian.
b (k) = igα (k) , igβ (k) , igα (k − 1) , · · · ,igβ (k − r + 1)

∂e1 (w) ∂e1 (w) ∂e1 (w)
 
u (k) = egα (k) , egβ (k) , egα (k − 1) , · · · ,egβ (k −p+1)
 T ···
 ∂w1
 ∂e (w) ∂w2 ∂wm 
 2 ∂e2 (w) ∂e2 (w) 
···

is the control variable. gfor,i is trained RBFNN model.
J (w) =  ∂w ∂w ∂w
 
1 2 m  (17)
. . .

. . .. .

B. LM OPTIMIZATION AIGORITHM

 . . . . 

For RBFNN multi-step predictive control, the optimization
 ∂eh (w) ∂eh (w) ∂eh (w) 
...
is to select the control vector according to the error between ∂w1 ∂w2 ∂wm
output value and reference value of the cost function. The From the Gauss-Newton method,
predictive controller selects the control signal of system at h i−1
moment k+1 through the optimization process at moment k. 1w = − J T (w) J (w) J (w) e (w) (18)
At the next moment k+1 the optimization process at moment
k is repeated, and the re-obtained control signal is applied to The LM algorithm is obtained by Gauss-Newton method:
i−1
k+2 moment of the system. Rolling optimization is achieved
h
1w = − J T (w) J (w) + θA J (w) e (w) (19)
through continuous loop optimization.
The optimization algorithm of this paper uses the LM where, the constant θ (θ > 0) is a scale factor. A is the unit
(Levenberg Marquardt) optimization algorithm [30], [31]. matrix.
The LM algorithm is a nonlinear optimization method. It is It can be seen from equation (19) that it is the
insensitive to over-parameterization problems and can effec- Gauss-Newton method when θ = 0. When θ is large
tively deal with redundant parameter problems. The chance of enough, it is closer to the gradient descent method. And θ
the cost function falling into local minimum values is greatly will decrease after iteration is successful. Therefore, when
reduced. The LM algorithm is widely used to train feedfor- approaching the expected error, it is gradually similar to the
ward networks and provides a good balance between speed of Gauss-Newton method. The Gauss-Newton method is faster
Newton method and the guaranteed convergence of gradient and more accurate when approaching the minimum of the
descent method. Therefore, the LM algorithm is the fastest error. Compared with the original gradient descent method,
training algorithm for medium-volume parameter network. the LM algorithm can effectively improve the speed [30].
It has advantages of both the gradient descent method and the
Newton method. The LM optimization algorithm is briefly C. MULTI-STEP PREDICTIVE MODEL
introduced below. Based on previous RBFNN one-step prediction model,
The RBFNN adjusts the basis function center c and the the input vector X at moment k+2 is updated with out-
connection weight w through output error, and then adjusts put ig (k + 1) and control input eg (k + 1) at moment k+1.
internal parameters of the network. The training of the net- Where, X = [eg (k + 1), eg (k) , · · · ,eg (k − p + 2) ,
work is completed by iterative calculation until output error ig (k + 1), ig (k), · · · , ig (k − r + 2) ]T . According to the
reaches preset accuracy requirement. updated input vector, RBFNN one-step prediction model is
The update formula for weight of the neural network is invoked to predict the output ig (k + 2) at moment k+2.
defined by In this way, the input vector is continuously updated, and
wk+1 = wk + 1w (11) the RBFNN one-step prediction model is recursively invoked.
In theory, the output value at any time in the future can be
where, wk is the weight vector at moment k. wk+1 is the predicted.
weight vector at moment k+1. The RBFNN multi-step prediction model of the system is
By Newton’s method, shown in Fig.4:
h i−1
1w = − ∇ 2 E (w) ∇E (w) (12) IV. RBFNN MULTI-STEP PREDICTIVE CONTROL
PRINCIPLE OF NPC INVERTER
where, ∇ 2 E (w) is the Hessian matrix of E (w). ∇E (w) is the Neural network predictive control is feedback optimization
gradient. control strategy. According to the current measurement infor-
The error function can be set to: mation, an open-loop optimization problem of the finite time
1 Xl domain is solved online at each adoption time. And an opti-
E (w) = e2 (w) (13)
2 j=1 j mal control sequence is selected to act on the controlled
Then, object. At the next sampling instant, the above process is
repeated. The new measured value is used as the initial
∇ 2 E (w) = J T (w) e (w) + g (w) (14) condition for predicting the future dynamics of the system
∇E (w) = J T (w) e (w) (15) at this time, and the optimization problem is refreshed and

VOLUME 7, 2019 157759

 Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter
FIGURE 4. RBFNN multi-step predictive model.
resolved. Predictive control is a discrete-time model based
on the system. The NPC inverter has 19 different control
signals. According to input of the control system at moment
k+1, all possible predicted values corresponding to each
control signal at moment k+1 are calculated. In order to
select an optimal control signal, it is necessary to define
an evaluation function. Then the optimal control signal that
minimizes the evaluation function is selected and it is used
as the control signal for inverter at moment k+1. With this
recursion, the control signal is selected in this way at each
subsequent time.
The block diagram of the control system of NPC inverter
is shown in Fig.5. The strategy is to collect output current
values of iga , igb , igc and grid voltage values of ega , egb , egc
at moment k before controlling. igα , igβ , egα and egβ are
obtained by αβ coordinate transformation. Then the RBFNN
is trained. After having the ability to approximate the inverter
system with a certain precision, the neural network prediction
model outputs all predicted values of igα (k + 1), igβ (k + 1)
at moment k+1 corresponding to different voltage vectors.
The optimization controller selects a set of voltage vectors
FIGURE 5. RBFNN predictive control structure of NPC inverter.
157760
that minimize the evaluation function as optimal voltage
vector, according to the error between predicted values of
ref
igα (k + 1), igβ (k + 1) and reference value of igα (k + 1),
ref
igβ (k + 1) in the evaluation function f . The switching state
corresponding to the optimal voltage vector is applied to the
next sampling period of inverter.
gα (k + 1)
f = igα (k + 1) − iref
ref
+ igβ (k + 1) − igβ (k+1) (20)
ref ref
where, igα (k + 1) and igβ (k + 1) are reference values of grid
current at moment k+1 in the αβ coordinate system.
The flow chart of RBFNN multi-step predictive control
algorithm is shown in Fig.6. State, f ∗ are variable parameters.
The variable state is voltage vectors output by the inverter,
and f is the value of the evaluation function.
FIGURE 6. Flow chart of RBFNN multi-step predictive control algorithm.
V. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS
In order to verify the effectiveness of the RBFNN multi-
step predictive control method, a simulation model is built
in Simulink according to the predictive control algorithm,
and simulation is implemented in the MATLAB 2016b
environment.
A. PARAMETER SETTINGS
The training parameters of RBFNN are set: p = 7, m = 2,
h = 3, f ∗ = 0.0001, the sampling period of training samples
is 0.00001s and the entire duration of training is 0.01s. The
maximum number of iterations is 2000.
VOLUME 7, 2019
Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter
FIGURE 7. Grid voltage (a), output current of traditional MPC method (b), output current of RBFNN multi-step predictive control method (c), output
current of Phase a track the reference current (d).
TABLE 1. Simulation parameters.
The settings of simulation parameters of the inverter sys-
tem are shown in Tab 1:
B. SIMULATION RESULTS
In this paper, the inverter simulation models of the RBFNN
multi-step predictive control and traditional MPC method are
established respectively, and the simulation results of the two
methods are compared and analyzed.
1) GRID VOLTAGE BALANCE
When the grid voltage and DC side voltage are constant and
stable, the grid voltage is shown in Fig.7a.
In steady-state operation, the output current generated by
the RBFNN multi-step predictive control and the traditional
MPC are shown in Fig.7. The amplitudes of output current are
VOLUME 7, 2019
TABLE 2. THD of output current for two methods (%).
around 10A. Peak ripples of current generated by traditional
MPC are larger than RBFNN multi-step predictive control.
THD of output current using RBFNN multi-step predictive
control and the traditional MPC methods are shown in Fig.8.
The comparison between THD values of output current using
RBFNN multi-step predictive control and traditional MPC
methods are summarized in Tab 2. The THD of output current
of RBFNN multi-step predictive control are lower than the
traditional MPC. The decrease in THD indicates that the
proposed method has better current control effects. Fig.7d
illustrates the ability of the RBFNN multi-step predictive
control to quickly track the reference current. The output
current almost coincides with the reference current, which
indicates the effect of current tracking is good. It can be seen
from the simulation that the THD of three-phase current are
less than 5%, the grid voltage and the output current are in
phase with the same frequency. It satisfies the requirements
of the grid connection. It can be known that RBFNN multi-
step predictive current control method has a good effect in
steady-state operation.
157761
 Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter

FIGURE 8. THD of three-phase output current of inverter using traditional MPC method (x-I) and RBFNN multi-step predictive control method (x-II).
{x: a, b, c}.

2) GRID VOLTAGE UNBALANCE
Under the condition of grid voltage imbalance, grid voltage
imbalance at 0.1s. The amplitude of grid voltage of Phase
a drop by 50%. The voltage unbalance factor (VUF) is
0.2. The unbalanced grid voltage is shown in Fig.9a. The
output current waveforms of the traditional MPC method
and RBFNN multi-step predictive control method are shown
in Fig.9b, c. In the case of grid voltage imbalance, the ampli-
tudes of three-phase current generated by traditional MPC
have different degrees of rise from Fig.9b. The current dis-
tortion rate is large and current waveforms contain a large
ripple at each peak and trough, which may damage the entire
system. Among the output current generated by RBFNN
multi-step predictive control, the amplitudes of Phase a have
a litter rise. The other two phase of currents have very small
fluctuations. Although there is still a small negative sequence
component in system, the method of RBFNN multi-step pre-
dictive control can make system output better current wave-

157762 VOLUME 7, 2019

Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter

FIGURE 9. Unbalanced grid voltage (a), output current of traditional MPC method (b), output current of RBFNN multi-step predictive control method (c).

forms. The THD of output current of the traditional MPC According to the transformation matrix, we can obtain the
method is large. The THD of Phase a current of RBFNN dynamic mathematical model:
multi-step predictive control method is 2.53%, which is much 
di+
gd
gd + ωLs igq
+ +
smaller than the traditional MPC method. It can be seen that + Rs i+ +


 e gd = ugd + L s
the current of RBFNN multi-step predictive control is more


 dt
di+


stable, and there is no big jump in the case of grid voltage  e+ = u+ + Ls gq + Rs i+ −ωLs i+


 gq gq gq gd
imbalance. dt (23)
−
 digd
 egd = ugd + Ls dt + Rs igd + ωLs igq
 −
 − − −

3) GRID CURRENT BALANCE CONTROL UNDER GRID 

−

VOLTAGE IMBALANCE
 e− = u− + L digq + R i− −ωL i−



The unbalance grid voltage has positive and negative gq gq s s gq s gd
dt
sequence components. It is necessary to eliminate the neg- To achieve the three-phase current balancing, eliminating
ative sequence component to achieve the three-phase current the negative sequence is needed. The required reference cur-
balancing. The grid voltage and current are decomposed into ref + ref + ref −
rents are igd = 10, igq = 0 and igdq = 0.
dq coordinate system as follows: Under the condition of grid voltage imbalance, grid voltage
( is unbalanced at 0.1s, the amplitudes of grid voltage of Phase
egαβ = e+ − + jωt
gαβ + egαβ = egdq e + e−
gdq e
−jωt
a drop by 50%. VUF is 0.2.
+ − + jωt − −jωt (21)
igαβ = igαβ + igαβ = igdq e + igdq e Output current of the traditional MPC and RBFNN
multi-step predictive control methods are shown in Fig.10b, c,
where, respectively. We can see that both two methods can make
 three-phase current balance. THD of the current for two meth-

 e+ +
gdq = egd + j∗egq
+ ods are summarized in Tab III. THD of three-phase current for

 e− = e− + j∗e−
 traditional MPC are 2.05%, 1.96% and 1.92%.
gdq gd gq
+ + + (22) THD of the three-phase current for RBFNN multi-step


 igdq = i gd + j∗igq predictive control are 1.58%, 1.52% and 1.48%. It indicates
 i− = i− + j∗i−

gdq gd gq that the proposed method has better effects of current control.

VOLUME 7, 2019 157763

 Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter
FIGURE 10. Unbalanced grid voltage (a), output current of traditional MPC method (b), output current of RBFNN multi-step predictive control method (c),
comparison of Phase a current of two control methods (d).
TABLE 3. THD of output current for two methods (%).
Comparison of Phase a current of two control methods is
shown in Fig.10d. The currents of RBFNN multi-step predic-
tive control are smoother and the jagged edges are effectively
eliminated.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper proposes a control strategy for NPC inverter
based on RBFNN multi-step predictive control. The current
control of the NPC inverter was studied. A mathematical
model of current prediction control is established. Through
the RBFNN prediction model, the possible predicted current
values of the inverter under different voltage vectors are
obtained. According to the evaluation function, the optimal
voltage vector is selected to obtain the optimal switching
state, and the current control of the inverter is realized. The
simulation results of this method are compared with the tra-
ditional MPC method. In steady-state operation, the control
strategy of this paper can quickly realize the output current
tracking the reference current. The output current is in phase
157764
with the grid voltage at the same frequency. Compared with
the traditional MPC method, the RBFNN multi-step predic-
tive control reduces the THD of the output current. When
the grid voltage is unbalanced, the control strategy proposed
in this paper can balance the output current. The currents of
RBFNN multi-step predictive control are smoother than the
traditional MPC. In summary, RBFNN multi-step predictive
control method has better current control performance.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Buticchi, D. Barater, E. Lorenzani, and G. Franceschini, ‘‘Digital
control of actual grid-connected converters for ground leakage current
reduction in PV transformerless systems,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.,
vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 563–572, Aug. 2012.
[2] W. Wu, J. Ji, and F. Blaabjerg, ‘‘Aalborg inverter—A new type of ‘Buck
in Buck, Boost in Boost’ grid-tied inverter,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 4784–4793, Sep. 2015.
[3] K. Kim, H. Cha, and H.-G. Kim, ‘‘A new single-phase switched-coupled-
inductor DC-AC inverter for photovoltaic systems,’’ IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 5016–5022, Jul. 2017.
[4] R. Davoodnezhad, D. G. Holmes, and B. P. McGrath, ‘‘A novel three-
level hysteresis current regulation strategy for three-phase three-level
inverters,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 6100–6109,
Nov. 2014.
[5] Z. Yao, J. Xu, and J. M. Guerrero, ‘‘Control and design of full-bridge
three-level converter for renewable energy sources,’’ in Proc. IEEE 16th
Workshop Control Modeling Power Electron. (COMPEL), Vancouver, BC,
Canada, Jul. 2015, pp. 1–6.
[6] J. D. Barros, J. F. A. Silva, and G. A. Jesus, ‘‘Fast-predictive optimal control
of npc multilevel converters,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 2,
pp. 619–627, Feb. 2013.
VOLUME 7, 2019
Y. Yu, X. Wang: Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter
[7] K. Y. Ahmed, N. Z. Yahaya, V. S. Asirvadam, K. Ramani, and O. Ibrahim,
‘‘Comparison of fuzzy logic control and PI control for a three-level rectifier
based on voltage oriented control,’’ in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Power Energy
(PECon), Melaka, Malaysia, Nov. 2016, pp. 127–132.
[8] M. A. Hannan, Z. A. Ghani, M. M. Hoque, P. J. Ker, A. Hussain, and
A. Mohamed, ‘‘Fuzzy logic inverter controller in photovoltaic applications:
Issues and recommendations,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 24934–24955,
Feb. 2019.
[9] W. Gao and Z.-P. Jiang, ‘‘Adaptive dynamic programming and adaptive
optimal output regulation of linear systems,’’ IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 4164–4169, Dec. 2016.
[10] B. Wang, Z. Shen, H. Liu, and J. Hu, ‘‘Linear ADRC direct current control
of grid-connected inverter with LCL filter for both active damping and
grid voltage induced current distortion suppression,’’ IET Power Electron.,
vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1748–1755, Sep. 2018.
[11] J. Yang, H. Cui, S. Li, and A. Zolotas, ‘‘Optimized active disturbance
rejection control for DC-DC buck converters with uncertainties using a
reduced-order GPI observer,’’ IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers,
vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 832–841, Feb. 2018.
[12] S. Chennai and M.-T. Benchouia, ‘‘Unified power quality conditioner
based on a three-level NPC inverter using fuzzy control techniques for
all voltage disturbances compensation,’’ Frontiers Energy, vol. 8, no. 2,
pp. 221–239, Jun. 2014.
[13] A. Taheri and M. H. Zhalebaghi, ‘‘A new model predictive control algo-
rithm by reducing the computing time of cost function minimization for
NPC inverter in three-phase power grids,’’ ISA Trans., vol. 71, no. 2,
pp. 391–402, Nov. 2017.
[14] A. A. Ahmed, B. K. Koh, and Y. Il Lee, ‘‘A comparison of finite control
set and continuous control set model predictive control schemes for speed
control of induction motors,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 1334–1346, Apr. 2018.
[15] A. Veksler, T. A. Johansen, F. Borrelli, and B. Realfsen, ‘‘Dynamic posi-
tioning with model predictive control,’’ IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1340–1353, Jul. 2016.
[16] E. Z. Bighash, S. M. Sadeghzadeh, E. Ebrahimzadeh, and F. Blaabjerg,
‘‘High quality model predictive control for single phase grid-connected
photovoltaic inverters,’’ Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 158, pp. 115–125,
May 2018.
[17] R. Errouissi, S. M. Muyeen, A. Al-Durra, and S. Leng, ‘‘Experimental
validation of a robust continuous nonlinear model predictive control based
grid-interlinked photovoltaic inverter,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63,
no. 7, pp. 4495–4505, Jul. 2016.
[18] J. Castelló, J. M. Espí, and R. García-Gil, ‘‘A new generalized robust
predictive current control for grid-connected inverters compensates anti-
aliasing filters delay,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 7,
pp. 4485–4494, Jul. 2016.
[19] J. Hu, J. Zhu, and D. G. Dorrell, ‘‘Model predictive control of grid-
connected inverters for PV systems with flexible power regulation and
switching frequency reduction,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 1,
pp. 587–594, Jan. 2015.
[20] B. Boukezata, J.-P. Gaubert, A. Chaoui, and M. Hachemi, ‘‘Predictive
current control in multifunctional grid connected inverter interfaced by PV
system,’’ Solar Energy, vol. 139, pp. 130–141, Dec. 2016.
[21] S. A. Hajimolana, S. M. Tonekabonimoghadam, M. A. Hussain,
M. H. Chakrabarti, N. S. Jayakumar, and M. A. Hashim, ‘‘Thermal stress
management of a solid oxide fuel cell using neural network predictive
control,’’ Energy, vol. 62, pp. 320–329, Dec. 2013.
[22] H. Zheng, Y. Zheng, and P. Li, ‘‘Sine-map chaotic PSO-based neural
network predictive control for deployable space truss structures,’’ in Proc.
IEEE Int. Symp. Ind. Electron., Taipei, Taiwan, May 2013, pp. 1–5.
[23] K. Ekkachai and I. Nilkhamhang, ‘‘Swing phase control of semi-active
prosthetic knee using neural network predictive control with particle swarm
optimization,’’ IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 24, no. 11,
pp. 1169–1178, Nov. 2016.
VOLUME 7, 2019
[24] Y. C. Lin, D.-D. Chen, M.-S. Chen, X.-M. Chen, and J. Li, ‘‘A precise
BP neural network-based online model predictive control strategy for die
forging hydraulic press machine,’’ Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 29, no. 9,
pp. 585–596, May 2018.
[25] H. Peng, J. Wu, G. Inoussa, Q. Deng, and K. Nakano, ‘‘Nonlinear system
modeling and predictive control using the RBF nets-based quasi-linear
ARX model,’’ Control Eng. Pract., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 59–66, 2009.
[26] M. Stogiannos, A. Alexandridis, and H. Sarimveis, ‘‘Model predictive
control for systems with fast dynamics using inverse neural models,’’ ISA
Trans., vol. 72, pp. 161–177, Jan. 2018.
[27] A. Alexandridis, E. Chondrodima, and H. Sarimveis, ‘‘Radial basis func-
tion network training using a nonsymmetric partition of the input space
and particle swarm optimization,’’ IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst.,
vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 219–230, Feb. 2013.
[28] X. Shen, H. Wang, J. Li, Q. Su, and L. Gao, ‘‘Distributed secondary voltage
control of islanded microgrids based on RBF-neural-network sliding-mode
technique,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 65616–65623, May 2019.
[29] H. R. Baghaee, A. K. Kaviani, M. Mirsalim, and G. B. Gharehpetian,
‘‘Harmonic optimization in single DC source multi-level inverters using
RBF neural networks,’’ in Proc. 3rd Power Electron. Drive Syst. Tech-
nol. (PEDSTC), Tehran, Iran, Feb. 2012, pp. 403–409.
[30] X. Fu, S. Li, M. Fairbank, D. C. Wunsch, and E. Alonso, ‘‘Training
recurrent neural networks with the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for
optimal control of a grid-connected converter,’’ IEEE Trans. Neural Netw.
Learn. Syst., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1900–1912, Sep. 2015.
[31] H. Meng, F. Yuan, T. Yan, and M. Zeng, ‘‘Indoor positioning of RBF neural
network based on improved fast clustering algorithm combined with LM
algorithm,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 5932–5945, Jan. 2019.
YUNJUN YU was born in Shangrao, China.
He received the B.Sc. degree in automation
and M.Sc. degree in control theory and control
engineering from Nanchang University, China,
in 2000 and 2007, respectively, and the Ph.D.
degree from the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
in 2013. He is currently an Associate Pro-
fessor with the Department of Electrical and
Automation Engineering, Information Engineer-
ing School, Nanchang University. His research
interests include fault diagnosis, data-driven optimal control and its applied
in photovoltaic micro-grid systems, ADRC, and low carbon electricity
technology.
XIANZHENG WANG received the B.Eng. degree
from Wuhan Textile University, in 2017. He is
currently pursuing the master’s degree in control
science and engineering with the School of Infor-
mation Engineering, Nanchang University, China.
His research interest includes micro-grid intelli-
gent control.
157765