IET Electric Power Applications

Research Article

Optimal switching sequence model predictive ISSN 1751-8660

Received on 18th January 2018
Revised 28th March 2018
control for three-phase Vienna rectifiers Accepted on 13th April 2018
E-First on 18th May 2018
doi: 10.1049/iet-epa.2018.0033
www.ietdl.org

Shiming Xie1, Yao Sun1, Mei Su1 , Jianheng Lin1, Qiming Guang1
1School of Information Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, People's Republic of China
E-mail: sumeicsu@mail.csu.edu.cn

Abstract: Vienna rectifier is a typical three-level rectifier with complicated operating constraints. Also, the constraints pose a
challenge for designing controllers with good dynamic performance. As predictive control is good at dealing with constraints, an
optimal switching sequence model predictive control (OSS-MPC) strategy for the three-phase Vienna rectifier is proposed. A
proportional–integral controller is designed to regulate the dc-link voltage. Also, an improved OSS-MPC method is utilised to
control the input currents. Compared to the conventional finite control set model predictive control, it has the extra advantages
of improved steady-state performance, fixed switching frequency, and elimination of weight factors. Simulation and experimental
results verify the correctness and effectiveness of the proposed control scheme.

1 Introduction Vienna rectifier in continuous conduction mode (CCM). Lately, an

Vienna rectifier has the advantages of low input current total
harmonic distortion (THD), low blocking voltage stress, high
power density, and so on [1, 2]. Hence, it has been widely used in
various applications, such as electric aircrafts, telecommunication,
and wind turbine systems [1, 3, 4].
The related researches of the Vienna rectifier are mainly
focused on modulation strategies and control methods. In [5], a
space vector modulation (SVM) is presented, which achieves
neutral-point voltage balance by adjusting the duty cycles of
redundant vectors. In [6], the relationship between three-level
voltage vectors and two-level voltage vectors has been discovered,
which makes the traditional two-level SVM method applicable to
Vienna rectifier. A carrier-based pulse width modulation (CBM) is
presented in [7], where the neutral-point voltage is balanced
through regulating the zero-sequence signals of reference voltages.
Two discontinuous pulse width modulation schemes are proposed
[8]. They achieve a wide range of modulation ratio and low
switching losses by avoiding switching the switches with
maximum phase current. Moreover, zero average neutral-point
current within a mains period is guaranteed. Meanwhile, the
minimum switching action is achieved [9].
In addition, a lot of control schemes are presented for good
dynamic performance. Usually, the main control targets of the three
phase Vienna rectifier are: (i) to keep the output voltage at the
desired value under time-varying loads or grid voltages; (ii) to
achieve sinusoidal input currents and given input reactive power;
and (iii) to maintain the neutral-point voltage balance. Hysteresis
current control method is proposed to control the ac current and
zero-sequence current [1], which is a useful control schemes with
the advantages of strong robustness and simple design procedure.
In [10], classic proportional–integral (PI) controllers are used based
on the average d–q model of the Vienna rectifier. An optimal zero-
sequence component is selected for dc-link voltage balance, which
is based on the relationship between the controlled duty cycle and
the dc-link neutral-point voltage. In [11], the modified one-cycle
control based on three-phase Vienna rectifier is presented, which
introduces the neutral-point voltage loop. Then, it improves the
utilisation ratio of dc-link voltage and balances the neutral-point
voltage. To improve dynamic performances during both start-up
and step-load and achieve good performances in steady state of the
Vienna-type rectifiers, an improved direct power control (DPC)
strategy based on sliding mode control with dual-closed-loop is
presented [12]. The control strategies above are designed for
open-loop current control scheme without current measurement is
proposed for Vienna rectifier working in discontinuous conduction
mode, which improves efficiency further [13].
Recently, finite control set model predictive control (FCS-
MPC) has been well developed in power electronics community
[14, 15]. It has changed the conventional control frameworks
which often includes modulation and control. The modulation has
been eliminated from FCS-MPC. Also, it is particularly suitable for
the system such as Vienna rectifier which suffers from strict
constraints. As there are only eight switching states in the three-
phase Vienna rectifier, the calculation burden of the FCS-MPC is
small. Therefore, the idea of FCS-MPC control is introduced in the
inner loop of the Vienna rectifier [16].
Optimal switching vector MPC (OSV-MPC) is a commonly
used control method in FCS-MPC [15]. However, it would lead to
uncertain switching frequency, which increases the difficulty of
designing input filters. Moreover, it needs higher sampling
frequencies to achieve a better performance. Optimal switching
sequence model predictive control (OSS-MPC) [15] is another
control method in FCS-MPC. It uses an optimal switching
sequence in a control period instead of an optimal switching state
in OSV-MPC. Thus, OSS-MPC has a better performance than
OSV-MPC. Moreover, it has the advantage of constant switching
frequency. It has been applied in the DPC of two-level converters
[17, 18]. However, the selections of optimal switching sequence
and optimal duty cycles are more complicated, so the
computational burden of OSS-MPC is heavy.
To overcome the shortcoming of OSS-MPC above, an improved
OSS-MPC with low computational burden for Vienna rectifiers is
presented. In the proposed control scheme, OSS-MPC only takes
charge of input current control. Also, the dc-link voltage regulation
and the neutral-point voltage balance are realised by a PI control
and a redundant vector pre-selection technique, respectively.
Compared to the conventional FCS-MPC for Vienna rectifiers [16],
it has the advantages of improved steady-state performance, fixed
switching frequency, and elimination of weight factors.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2
presents the system model of the three-phase Vienna rectifier. In
Section 3, the proposed control scheme is described in detail. In
Section 4, the simulation and experimental results are presented
and discussed. Finally, the main points of this paper are
summarised in Section 5.

IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 7, pp. 1006-1013 1006
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018

Fig. 1 Circuit configuration of the three-phase Vienna rectifier
Fig. 2 Block diagram of the proposed control scheme
Fig. 3 Vienna rectifiers voltage vectors in sector I
2 Model of three-phase Vienna rectifier
Fig. 1 shows the topology of the three-phase Vienna rectifier,
which involves a three-phase diode rectifier, three bidirectional
switches, three boost inductors, and two dc capacitors.
Assume that the Vienna rectifier is operating in current CCM.
The dynamics of input currents are expressed as follows:
dia
L = vsa − van − iaRs − uno
dt
dib
L = vsb − vbn − ibRs − uno
dt
dic
L = vsc − vcn − icRs − uno
dt
where L is the boost inductance, vsi, ii i = a, b, c are the input
phase voltage and current, uno is the zero-sequence voltage,
vin i = a, b, c are the semi-controllable voltage, which is
determined by not only the switching state of the bidirectional
switch, but also the direction of the input current.
For convenience, denote Si i = a, b, c as switching states of the
three bidirectional switches of the Vienna rectifier. Also, Si = 0
means the switch T i is off; Si = 1 means the switch T i is on. Then
the semi-controllable voltage vin can be given as:
sign ii + 1 sign ii − 1
vin = 1 − Si 2
vc1 + 2
vc2
IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 7, pp. 1006-1013
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Table 1 Vector sequence to be applied
Sector vt = vr1, vr2, vr3, vr3, vr2, vr1
A V1, V2, (V0 or V7), (V0 or V7), V2, V1
B V2, V3, (V0 or V7), (V0 or V7), V3, V2
C V3, V4, (V0 or V7), (V0 or V7), V4, V3
D V4, V5, (V0 or V7), (V0 orV7), V5, V4
E V5, V6, (V0 or V7), (V0 or V7), V6, V5
F V6, V1, (V0 or V7), (V0 or V7), V1, V6
Table 2 Switch state of redundant vectors in each sector
Sector V0 V7
I [0, 1, 1] [1, 0, 0]
II [0, 0, 1] [1, 1, 0]
III [0, 1, 0] [1, 0, 1]
IV [1, 0, 0] [0, 1, 1]
V [1, 1, 0] [0, 0, 1]
VI [1, 0, 1] [0, 1, 0]
where vc1 and vc2 are the voltage across the capacitor C1 and C2,
respectively. Also, sign( ) is the sign function to distinguish the
direction of currents.
Assume C1 = C2 = C , then voltage error of the two capacitors
equation can be written as:
dv~
C = iC1 − iC2 = − i0 = − ∑ Siii (3)
dt i = a, b, c
where iC1, iC2 are the currents passing through the capacitors, io is
the neutral-point current, and v~ the capacitor voltage deviation, i.e.
v~ = vC1 − vC2.
3 Proposed OSS-MPC
Fig. 2 shows the proposed control block diagram of the Vienna
rectifier. The dc-link voltage is controlled by a PI controller. Also,
input currents and voltage balance control controlled by the
proposed predictive controller.
3.1 Redundant vector pre-selection
The Vienna rectifier is a highly constrained three-level rectifier.
According to (2), its semi-controllable voltages depend on the
polarity of the input currents. Assume that ia > 0, ib < 0, ic < 0,
the possible controllable voltage vectors lie in sector I and are
shown in Fig. 3 (cf. Fig. 2 in [9]). In fact, for a certain input current
vector, there are only eight controllable voltage vectors.
According to the principle of SVM, to obtain good current
quality, it is better to apply a proper switching sequence rather than
only one switching state applied in one control period like OSV-
MPC which is a traditional FCS-MPC. OSS-MPC is such a
(1)
predictive method based on this idea. As Fig. 3 depicts, sector I
could be divided into six small sectors (A–F). Based on the
criterion that the switching sequence made up of adjacent vectors,
all the switching sequences are listed in Table 1 where vt is the
vector sequence and vr1, vr2, vr3 are the corresponding switch states
used in the modulation period. Vectors V0 or V7 are called the
redundant vectors as they have the same effect on input currents
but an opposite effect on the neutral-point voltage. Table 2 shows
the switch states of the redundant vectors in each sector. Since
vectors V0 or V7 are the vertices of any small sector like (A–F), the
neutral-point voltage balance could be well achieved. From Table
1, there are 12 feasible switching sequence candidates.
Obviously, selecting an optimal switching sequence from the 12
candidates would consume amounts of time. Therefore, a pre-
selected algorithm based on the polarity of voltage error is
(2) proposed to reduce the computation efforts. The principle of
redundant vector pre-selection is that the selected redundant vector
1007
must satisfy v~io > 0. For example, select the redundant vector as k
f β2 − f β3 eiα k
+ f α3 − f α2 eiβ + f α2 f β3 − f α3 f β2 T s
V0 = [0, 1, 1] when v~ < 0 in sector I. After the redundant vector d1 =
T s f β2 − f β3 f α1 + f β3 − f β1 f α2 + f β1 − f β2 f α3
pre-selection, there are six feasible switching sequence candidates. k k
Hence, the amount of computation is almost reduced by half. f β3 − f β1 eiα + f α1 − f α3 eiβ + f α3 f β1 − f α1 f β3 T s (10)
d2 =
T s f β2 − f β3 f α1 + f β3 − f β1 f α2 + f β1 − f β2 f α3
3.2 Duty cycles d3 = 1 − d1 − d2
Transform (1) in abc coordinate into the equation in αβ coordinate
as follows: 3.3 Algorithm implementation
To implement the OSS-MPC, the cost function (shown in Fig. 4a)
diα 1 of six feasible switching sequence candidates should be calculated
= vsα − vαn − iαRs
dt L in each control cycle. The switching sequence with minimum cost
(4)
diβ 1 function is the optimal switching sequence. The flowchart of the
= vsβ − vβn − iβRs
dt L proposed OSS-MPC strategy is shown in Fig. 4a. Ftk is the value of
k
cost function calculated for the tth switching sequence, and Fmin is
where vsαβ, isαβ are the input voltages and currents in αβ coordinate. the minimum value of the calculated cost functions. Besides,
Assume the control period is short enough, then it is reasonable vropj , d1,op2, 3 denote the optimal switching sequence and the duty cycles
to view increments of the input current iα, iβ as constants. The duty
cycles of vr j( j = 1, 2, 3) in a control cycle are defined as d1, d2, and of vropj , respectively. Assume that the Vienna rectifier is operating in
d3. Then, the predicted input currents of Vienna rectifier at sector I and the optimal switching sequence vropj is
(k + 1)th instant can be expressed as follows: V2, V3, V7, V7, V3, V2 , then the double-side switching pattern is
adopted for the modulation process, which is illustrated in Fig. 4b.
3 However, the delay between the measurements and the
iα k + 1 = iα k + ∑ f α jd jT s actuation is an inherent shortcomings of digital control, which has
j=1
(5) a great impact on the performance. In this paper, the first-step
3 prediction is repeated every sampling time to compensate the time
iβ k + 1 = iβ k + ∑ f β jd jT s delay. The first-step prediction are as follows:
j=1
3
where T s is the control period, and ∑ f¯ α jd̄ jTs + kα iα k
^ ^
i α(k + 1) = iα k + − i α(k)
j=1
3
(11)
diα 1
∑ f β jd̄ jTs + kβ iβ k
^ ¯ ^
fαj = S = Sj = vsα k − vrα j − iα k Rs i β(k + 1) = iβ k + − i β(k)
dt vsβ = vsβ k L
iβ = iβ k j=1
(6)
diβ 1 ^
f βj = S = Sj = vsβ k − vrβ j − iβ k Rs where i is the first prediction values replacing the measured value,
dt vsβ = vsβ k L f¯ and d̄ are the increments for the input current and the duty cycles
iβ = iβ k
calculated by the previous control period. The third terms of (11)
where f α j, f β j are the increments for the input current iα, iβ; are correction term which improves accuracy of the prediction.
iα k + 1 , iβ k + 1 are the predicted input currents at (k + 1)th
instant, and iα k , iβ k are the measured value of input currents at 3.4 Stability discussion
kth instant. Stability is an important issue in the research of MPC. The terminal
The optimal duty cycles are solved by minimising the input constraint method and terminal cost method are two commonly
current tracking errors, which are defined as: used methods to guarantee the stability of the MPC. According to
2 2
the results in [19], if there exists a control law that admits (12),
F k = eiα
k+1 k+1
+ eiβ (7) then the control system is stable:

k+1 k+1 T
where eiα and eiβ are current tracking errors, and they are F k + 1 − F k = − α ∥ iα∗ − iα, iβ∗ − iβ ∥ (12)
expressed as:
where α ∈ κ∞.
3
As many existing methods for Vienna rectifier have been
k+1
eiα ∗
= iα k + 1 − iα k − ∑ f α jd jT s proved to be locally stable [10–12], the control law which admits
k j=1
eiα (12) exists clearly. Thus, the proposed OSS-MPC control system is
(8)
3 stable with a certain region of attraction. A long prediction horizon
k+1
eiβ ∗
= iβ k + 1 − iβ k − ∑ f β jd jT s is advantageous for stability [20]. However, the proposed OSS-
k
eiβ
j=1 MPC is a one-step prediction. Therefore, it could be inferred that
the region of attraction may not be large, which is one shortcoming
The optimisation problem can be formulated as follows: of the proposed OSS-MPC.

minimise F k 4 Simulations and experimental results

The proposed control scheme has been tested on the three-phase
According to the following conditions: Vienna rectifier system. The main system parameters are
summarised in Table 3.
∂F k
=0
∂d1 4.1 Simulation results
(9)
∂F k Numerical simulations have been carried out in MATLAB/
=0
∂d2 Simulink platform to illustrate the steady-state and dynamic
performance of the proposed control scheme. Besides, the method
This yields the following optimal duty cycles: using OSV-MPC [21] is utilised for comparison.

1008 IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 7, pp. 1006-1013
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Fig. 4 Schematic of the control process and modulation
(a) Flowchart of the proposed OSS-MPC, (b) Schematic diagrams of the modulation scheme

Table 3 Parameters used in the simulations and

experiments
Symbol Description Value
Vs input line voltage 110 V(rms)
ω input angular frequency 314 rad/s
L boost inductance 6 mH
C dc-link capacitance 560 μF
R load resistance 80 Ω
V dc dc-link voltage 250 V
Ts sample period 100 μs

First, the operating condition of the unity power factor is

considered. The reference voltage is set to 250 V, and the control
system starts up at t = 0.2 s. Fig. 5 shows the simulation results
during start-up with the proposed control. As seen, before start-up,
the capacitor voltages are pulsating and the input current is
severely distorted. After start-up, each capacitor voltage is
regulated to half of the desired dc-link voltage quickly. Also, the
input current also is sinusoidal and in phase with the input phase
voltage.
To show the dynamic performance of the proposed control
scheme, the voltage reference is changed from 200 to 250 V at t =
0.2 s. Figs. 6a and b show the simulation results of the proposed
method and the OSV-MPC method, respectively. The sampling
period of the OSV-MPC method is 100 μs. They have almost the
same dynamic response with regard to input currents, dc-link
voltage, and neutral-point voltage balance. However, it is easy to
find that the steady-state performance of the proposed control
scheme is better than that of the OSV-MPC.
IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 7, pp. 1006-1013
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Fig. 5 Simulation results of the OSS-MPC during start-up
In addition, the dynamic response of the dc-link voltage to the
step load changing from 80 to 60 Ω is tested. As observed in Figs.
6c and d, both the proposed controller and the OSV-MPC
controller are able to maintain the desired dc-link voltage in the
presence of the load disturbance. It is clear that they have the
similar dynamic performance by selecting the optimal result in the
finite set. Moreover, the capacitor voltages still keep the balance. It
is proved that the pre-selection of vector can work well. To
compare the input current quality of OSV-MPC and OSS-MPC, the
THD values of the input currents under different load conditions
are recorded and shown in Fig. 7. Clearly, the proposed method has
better performance in input current quality.
Figs. 6e and f show the simulation results for the step load
changing from 80 to 2400 Ω at t = 0.1 s. A large overshoot is found
1009
Fig. 6 Simulation results
(a) The proposed for the dc-link voltage reference changes from 200 to 250 V, (b) The OSV-MPC for the dc-link voltage reference changes from 200 to 250 V, (c) The proposed for
the load step change from 80 to 60 Ω, (d) The OSV-MPC for the load step change from 80 to 60 Ω, (e) The proposed for the load step change from 80 to 2.4k Ω, (f) The OSV-MPC
for the load step change from 80 to 2.4k Ω

Fig. 7 THD of input current under different loads (dc-link voltage reference of 250 V)

in dc-link voltage as seen in Fig. 6e. Also, the overshoot voltage
disappears after ∼3 period because Vienna rectifier is a
unidirectional one. When the system is in steady state under light
loads, approximately sinusoidal input currents are obtained still but
some large spikes exist. The same experiment is tested with OSV-
MPC; the results are shown in Fig. 6f. Clearly, the dc-link voltage
is out of control in this case. From the comparative results, it can
be inferred that the proposed method has a larger stable attractive
region than the OSV-MPC.
Since mathematical model is required in the FCS-MPC, the
robustness against parameter uncertainties should be considered.
The related tests are carried out with the desired dc-link voltage of
250 V.
Figs. 8a and b show the simulation results of the controller in
which the nominal parameters of the converter are
L = 6 mH and C = 560 μF, while the real parameters are
L = 3 mH and C = 1120 μF. From (3), the variation of capacitance
will affect the ripple of the neutral-point voltage but has little effect
on the stability, which is verified in Fig. 8. As the actual
capacitance increases, the voltage error of dc-link voltage becomes
smaller. However, the input current ripple become larger. The

1010 IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 7, pp. 1006-1013
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Fig. 8 Simulation waveforms of the input currents and error between the
capacitor voltages in
(a) L = 6 mH and C = 560 μF, (b) L = 3 mH and C = 1120 μF, (c) THD of the input
current under filter inductance value (L) variation
Fig. 9 Laboratory prototype of the Vienna rectifier
Fig. 10 Experimental results of the proposed control scheme when the
control system starts up
reasons are twofold: (i) the predictive model is inaccurate; (ii) the
filtering performance degrades as the inductance decreases.
Next, the inductance parameter uncertainty is considered. A
series of different inductance values are tested. As seen in Fig. 8c,
the input current THD is <4% when the practical value of the input
inductors is >0.55 times and <2 times of its nominal value. The
results show that the proposed control is robust to parameter
uncertainty.
4.2 Experimental results
Apart from the simulation studies, experiments are also performed
to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method. A prototype
of the three-phase Vienna rectifier is built in the laboratory as
shown in Fig. 9. The specifications of this system are the same
IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 7, pp. 1006-1013
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
Fig. 11 Experimental results under the dc-link voltage changing from 200
to 250 V
(a) OSS-MPC, (b) OSV-MPC, (c) Method in [10]
with those in simulation, which are listed in Table 3. For simplicity,
IGBT-Module FS3L25R12W2H3_B11 (Infineon) is used to
construct the power stage of the Vienna rectifier. Besides, a control
board (32 bit floating digital signal processor TMS320F28335 and
field-programmable gate array EP2C8T144C8N) has been
developed to execute the proposed control methods. The control
period is 100 μs.
The experimental waveforms before and after the start-up are
shown in Fig. 10. The measured waveforms include a-phase
voltage and current, and two capacitor voltages. As observed, the
proposed controller has fast dynamic response and takes <10 ms to
go into steady state. Fig. 11a shows the experimental results in the
case of the dc-link voltage reference changing from 200 to 250 V.
∗
The THD of the input current is 3.89 and 2.55% under V dc = 200 V
∗
and V dc = 250 V, respectively. The experimental results are in good
agreement with the simulation results in Figs. 5 and 6a.
Besides OSV-MPC, the conventional control method in [10] is
used for comparison in experiments. All of them are tested under
the same experimental conditions. Fig. 11 shows the experimental
results in the case of the dc-link voltage reference changing from
200 to 250 V. As seen, three methods have basically the same
dynamic performance. The corresponding spectrum analysis results
∗
of the input current with V dc = 200 V are illustrated in Fig. 12 and
the THDs are listed in Table 4. The spectrum analysis results show
that the proposed method has better steady-state performance.
In addition, experimental results under the load resistance
changing from 80 to 60 Ω are shown in Fig. 13. As observed, the
dc-link voltages of the three methods dip a little and recover to
normal in a short time. However, voltage ripple of the method in
1011
 Table 4 THD of the input current in the three methods
Method OSS-MPC OSV-MPC Method in [10]
THD, % 3.89 6.02 6.93

Fig. 12 Spectrum graphics of input currents

Fig. 14 Experimental results under different desired input power factor

(a) φs = π/12, (b) φs = π/6, (c) φs = − π/12, (d) φs = − π/6

Table 5 THD of the input current under different input

Fig. 13 Experimental results under the load resistance changing from 80 power factor
to 60 Ω φs π/12 π/6 −π/12 −π/6
(a) OSS-MPC, (b) OSV-MPC, (c) Method in [10]
THD, % 2.65 6.79 2.36 2.30

[10] is larger than those of the other methods. The distinct voltage
ripple is caused by the approximated zero-sequence component
OSS-MPC is greatly reduced. Compared with traditional OSV-
[10].
MPC method, OSS-MPC has better steady-state performance. In
Furthermore, Figs. 14a–d show the corresponding experimental
addition, the proposed scheme overcomes the drawback of OSV-
waveforms under φs = ± π/12 and ± π/6. As seen, the OSS-MPC
MPC that the switching frequency is not fixed. Meanwhile, it
still achieve a good performance in these cases. The THD of the eliminates the weight factors in the cost function. Thus, the OSS-
input current are given in Table 5. It can be found that the THD of MPC is a very attractive alternative for other power converters.
input current in the case of φs = π/6 is higher than that in the case
of φs = − π/6. This conforms to the basic operating characteristics
6 Acknowledgments
of the Vienna rectifier [16].
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grants 61622311, in part by the Joint
5 Conclusion
Research Fund of Chinese Ministry of Education under Grant
In this paper, an OSS-MPC control method is proposed for the 6141A02033514.
three-phase Vienna rectifier. Owing to the proposed redundant
vector pre-selection, the computational burden of the proposed

1012 IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 7, pp. 1006-1013
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
7 References
[1] Kolar, J.W., Zach, F.C.: ‘A novel three-phase utility interface minimizing line
current harmonics of high-power telecommunications rectifier modules’,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 1997, 44, (4), pp. 456–467
[2] Soeiro, T.B., Kolar, J.W.: ‘Analysis of high-efficiency three-phase two-and
three-level unidirectional hybrid rectifiers’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2013,
60, (9), pp. 3589–3601
[3] Rajaei, A., Mustafa, M., Varjani, A.Y.: ‘Vienna-rectifier-based direct torque
control of PMSG for wind energy application’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
2013, 60, (7), pp. 2919–2929
[4] Pefia-Alzola, R., Campos-Gaona, D., Paz, F., et al.: ‘MPPT and control
design of a Vienna rectifier-based low power wind turbine with reduced
number of sensors’. 2016 IEEE 7th Int. Symp. on Power Electronics for
Distributed Generation Systems (PEDG), 2016, pp. 1–5
[5] Viitanen, T., Tuusa, H.: ‘Space vector modulation and control of a
unidirectional three-phase/level/switch Vienna I rectifier with LCL-type AC
filter’, IEEE PESC'03, 2003, (3), pp. 1063–1068
[6] Burgos, R, Lai, R., Pei, Y., et al.: ‘Space vector modulator for Vienna-type
rectifiers based on the equivalence between two- and three-level converters: a
carrier-based implementation’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2008, 23, (4),
pp. 1888–1898
[7] Zhang, X., Wang, Q., Burgos, R., et al.: ‘Discontinuous pulse width
modulation methods with neutral point voltage balancing for three phase
Vienna rectifiers’. Proc. IEEE ECCE'15, September 2015, pp. 225–232
[8] Dalessandro, L., Round, S.D., Drofenik, U., et al.: ‘Discontinuous space-
vector modulation for three-level PWM rectifiers’, IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2008, 23, (2), pp. 530–542
[9] Kolar, J.W., Drofenik, U., Zach, F.C.: ‘Current handling capability of the
neutral point of a three-phase/switch/level boost-type PWM (VIENNA)
rectifier’. 27th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conf., 1996, vol.
2, pp. 1329–1336
[10] Lai, R., Wang, F., Burgos, R., et al.: ‘Average modeling and control design for
VIENNA-type rectifiers considering the DC-link voltage balance’, IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., 2009, 24, (11), pp. 2509–2522
IET Electr. Power Appl., 2018, Vol. 12 Iss. 7, pp. 1006-1013
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2018
[11] Wei, Z., Chen, J., Chen, X., et al.: ‘Modified one-cycle-controlled three-phase
pulse-width modulation rectifier under low-output DC voltage conditions’,
IET Power Electron., 2014, 7, (3), pp. 753–763
[12] Ma, H, Xie, Y, Shi, Z., et al.: ‘Improved direct power control for Vienna-type
rectifiers based on sliding mode control’, IET Power Electronics, 2016, 9, (3),
pp. 427–434
[13] Leibl, M., Kolar, J.W., Deuringer, J.: ‘Sinusoidal input current discontinuous
conduction mode control of the VIENNA rectifier’, IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2017, 32, (11), pp. 8800–8812
[14] Kouro, S., Perez, M.A., Rodriguez, J.: ‘Model predictive control: MPC's role
in the evolution of power electronics’, IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag., 2015, 9, (4),
pp. 8–21
[15] Vazquez, S., Rodriguez, J.: ‘Model predictive control for power converters
and drives: advances and trends’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2017, 64, (2),
pp. 935–947
[16] Li, X., Sun, Y., Wang, H., et al.: ‘A hybrid control scheme for three-phase
Vienna rectifiers’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2018, 33, (1), pp. 629–640
[17] Vazquez, S, Marquez, A., Aguilera, R., et al.: ‘Predictive optimal switching
sequence direct power control for grid-connected power converters’, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., 2015, 62, (4), pp. 2010–2020
[18] Larrinaga, S.A., Vidal, M., Oyarbide, E., et al.: ‘Predictive control strategy for
DC/AC converters based on direct power control’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
2007, 54, (3), pp. 1261–1271
[19] Mayne, D.Q., Rawlings, J.B., Rao, C.V., et al.: ‘Constrained model predictive
control: stability and optimality’, Automatica, 2000, 36, (6), pp. 789–814
[20] Geyer, T., Papafotiou, G., Morari, M.: ‘Model predictive direct torque control
– part I: concept, algorithm, and analysis’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2009,
56, (6), pp. 1894–1905
[21] Majid Hosseini Khorasgani, S., Izadinia, A., Karshenas, H.R., et al.: ‘Finite
control set model predictive control for dc voltage balancing in Vienna
rectifier’. 2016 24th Iranian Conf. on Electrical Engineering (ICEE), Iranian,
2016, pp. 687–692
1013