Predictive Current Controller for a Grid Connected Three Level Inverter with Reactive Power Control

R Krishna, Student Member

Division of Electricity Uppsala University, Sweden Remya.Krishna@angstrom.uu.se

Sasi K Kottayil
Dept of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India kk_sasi@cb.amrita.edu

M Leijon, IEEE Member

Division of Electricity Uppsala University, Sweden Mats.Leijon@angstrom.uu.se

Abstract This paper presents a predictive method of current control for grid connected three level neutral point clamped inverter in synchronous rotating frame. The predictive current controller calculates the inverter voltage required to force the load current to follow the reference. To validate the performance the computational time has been compared with DSP processor TMS320C240 and the maximum permissible sampling frequency is calculated. Transient performance of the controller is analyzed. The proposed controller also validates the neutral voltage balancing and reactive power control. Three phase balanced current injection to the grid with reactive power control has been attained. The decoupled control over active and reactive power has been achieved through the variation of synchronously rotating two axis currents. Keywords- Predictive current controller, Neutral point clamped inverter, Synchronous rotaing frame, reactive power compensation

I.

INTRODUCTION

Recently, enacting energy policies and regulations aim to promote the green power production for the increased energy demand and thereby mitigating the issues like climate change and global warming. Reliable power electronic technologies favor increased utility integration of renewable energy [1]. Medium voltage converters are apt to facilitate lossless high power transfer. Hence, multilevel inverters, especially three level inverters are getting more attention due to its superior performance. The controllers for grid connected inverters consist of cascaded loops, with an outer slow dynamic voltage controller and an internal fast current or power controller. The DC link voltage controller is intended to balance the power flow in the system. The intermittent behavior of renewable energy systems results in a wide variation of rectified voltage. Therefore, subsequent inverter current controller bandwidth should be high enough to handle this voltage variation. It is also responsible for power quality issues and harmonic compensation. Linear controller performance is satisfactory in steady state, but it gives poor results for other operating conditions [2]. Predictive control is a concept of different control methods. Main strategies of predictive inverter control methods have been discussed in [3]. Recent developments in predictive control strategies are for drive applications. It has been established as an appropriate control technique for high power

drive systems [4]. Predictive controller combines a dead beat control with Luenberger observer as discussed in [5]. An adaptive internal model to optimize the parameters under uncertain system dynamics has been explained in [6]. Most of the research on predictive controller has been done for two level inverter systems. Since multilevel switching schemes as such make strenuous computation, the feasibility of predictive controller performance in multilevel inverters is yet to be examined. Predictive control for a three level neutral point clamped (NPC) inverter effectively controls the load current. Consequently, substantial reduction in the mean value of absolute difference between the reference current and the load current can be achieved. Therefore absolute tracking error is lower compared to pulse width modulation techniques [7]. Another advantage of predictive controller is its general method which is suitable for linear and nonlinear systems besides the possibility to include all system nonlinearities in the design procedure. The predictive current control algorithm for a three level inverter in -co-ordinates is explained in [8], but the time varying quantities make the implementation difficult. As the total harmonic distortion (THD) of load current is a function of switching frequency, higher switching frequency results in lower THD as well as increased switching losses. Reduced switching loss under variable switching frequency can be achieved by optimal switching method [9]. The controller model in synchronous reference frame (SRF) makes the implementation and performance analysis of the system easy for reactive power control and sequence components based voltage dip compensation. It also helps the online estimation of transmission line parameters. Most of the work focuses on unity power factor current injection to the grid. In order to meet the grid code requirement, the reactive power has to be controlled. This paper focuses on predictive current controller in synchronous rotating frame with reactive power control for a grid connected three level neutral point clamped inverter (NPC). Section II presents the SRF modeling of grid connected threelevel inverter. Section III deals with the predictive control algorithm for reference current tracking, neutral point voltage balancing and reactive power control. Section III points out the practical constraints of controller implementation and selection of sampling frequency. The system performance is shown in section IV.

Fig 2. Space vector diagram for three level inverter

The phase to neutral voltage can be expressed as follows, where x = a , b , c is the state of switches in each phase.
Fig 1. Grid Connected Neutral Point Clamped Inverter

II.

NEUTRAL POINT CLAMPED INVERTER

In stationary frame, the grid connected inverter can be modeled as follows:

(2 a1 b1 c1 ) (2 a 2 b2 c 2 ) Van V = 1 (2 ) (2 ) Vc1 a1 c1 b2 a2 c2 bn 3 b1 V (2 c1 b1 a1 ) (2 c2 b2 a 2 ) c 2 Vcn (6)

The space vector representation of NPC in fig (2) shows all the switching vectors. Every possible inverter output voltage can be calculated with these switching states using the available DC voltage. III. PREDICTIVE CURRENT CONTROLLER

1 d R iabc = i abc + (v abc eabc ) L L dt

i

(1)

Where abc are the inverter output currents, v abc and eabc are the inverter output and grid voltages respectively. R and L are the equivalent series resistance and inductance as shown in fig (1). The sinusoidally varying parameters can be changed to time invariant quantities by d-q transformation. In SRF, the current is decomposed into corresponding d-q frame.

1 d R i d ( k ) = i d ( k ) + (v d ( k ) ed ( k ) ) + wi q ( k ) L L dt 1 d R i q ( k ) = i q ( k ) + (v q ( k ) e q ( k ) ) + wi d ( k ) L L dt d 1 v dc = i c .dt dt C
T

( 2) (3)
( 4)

A. Reference Current Tracking The predictive controller works on the subsequent signal values. It calculates the minimum inverter voltage required to force the inductor current to follow the reference. This algorithm works as the block diagram shown in fig (3). The inverter output voltage for (k+1) instant can be written as:

vd ( k +1) = Rid ( k +1) + L

q ( k +1) = Riq ( k +1) + L

d id (k +1) wiq(k +1) + ed (k +1) (7) dt

(8)

idq = K [ia , ib , ic ] Where K is the transformation matrix.

2 2 cos( wt ) cos( wt 3 ) cos( wt + 3 ) K = sin( wt ) sin( wt 2 ) sin( wt + 2 3 3 ) (5)

d iq ( k +1) + wid ( k +1) + ed (k +1) dt

i d ( k +1) i d ( k ) i q ( k +1) i q ( k ) d d and iq ( k +1) = id ( k +1) = dt dt Ts Ts

Substitute the above relation in equations (8) and (9).

Fig 3. Block diagram for Predictive current controller

Load current at (k + 1)th instant is:

id (k +1) =

1 Lid (k ) + wTs Liq(k +1) + Ts(Vd (k +1) ed (k +1) ) (9) (RTs + L)

minimum voltage unbalance. But, the percentage voltage deviation depends on the normalizing factor. In discrete form, the DC link dynamics can be written as follows: The currents drawn from DC link are,

id (k +1)

1 = Liq(k ) wTs Lid (k +1) + Ts(Vq(k +1) eq(k +1) ) (RTs + L)

i s = ic1 + i1 ic1 = i0 + ic 2 ic 2 = i s + i1
Under balanced output current condition,

(12) (13) (14) i1 + i0 + i 1 = 0 (15)

(10)
The future grid voltage values are calculated by Lagrange extrapolation method. If the sampling time is low extrapolation can be avoided. The cost function to follow the reference current trajectory can be calculated as:

i1 = ( a1 * a2 )ia + ( b1 * b2 )ib + ( c1 * c2 )ic

c1 = 1 i d ( k +1)

ref

i d ( k +1) + 2 i q ( k +1)

ref

i q ( k +1)

(11)

i0 = ( a 2 * a 3 )ia + ( b 2 * b 3 )ib + ( c 2 * c 3 )ic (16) i1 = ( a 3 * a 4 )ia + ( b 3 * b 4 )ib + ( c 3 * c 4 )ic (17)

By solving the above equations, the current flowing through the capacitors can be written as:

Where 1 and 2 are the weighting factors. The quality of the current control algorithm determines the total harmonic distortion. B. DC Voltage Balancing When an output phase is shorted to capacitor middle point, the corresponding phase current is injected to the neural point, and that causes capacitor voltage unbalance. To preserve the voltage balance, the averaged neutral current value should be zero. In order to keep this current zero, alternate switching of lower and upper capacitor is needed. It can also be done based on the energy associated with the capacitor. In order to minimize the capacitor unbalancing, it is necessary to include those switching functions, which give

i s ic1 1 1 1 i = 1 1 0 i1 c2 i1

(18)

DC link capacitor voltage can be obtained by substituting the values of ic1 and ic 2 .

v c 1( k + 1) = v c 1 ( k ) +

1 i c1 .T s C

(19 )

IV.

PRACTICAL ISSUES

vc 2 ( k +1) = vc 2( k ) +

vc ( k +1) = vc1( k +1)

1 ic 2 .Ts C v c 2( k +1)

(20)

(21)

The objective function to minimize the voltage unbalance is

c 2 = vc ( k +1)

(22)

To balance the neutral voltage, the redundant switching combinations are switched alternately for the same inverter voltage vector. Therefore the unbalance due to current switching state can be nullified in the next switching. According to direct minimization method [10], the capacitor voltage can be balanced by switching the capacitor having higher energy. The cost function can be calculated from the capacitor voltage and current through the capacitor.

The main concern with the high speed controllers is the need of higher switching frequency. But the associated computational complexities take longer processing time to complete a cycle. Moreover, the controller speed is limited by the device incapability and higher switching losses. In order to find out the optimum time needed for each controller commands, a time comparison with the DSP processor instruction cycle has been done. To minimize this time, two assumptions have been considered. Firstly, pre-calculated look-up table values are used for co-ordinate transformation; and secondly, the system is under balanced condition. To calculate the maximum sampling frequency of the controller, the computational time has been compared with TMS320C240 DSP processor. The processor speed is selected as 10MIP. The total execution time of the controller is approximately calculated as 125s. Therefore, the maximum value of sampling frequency is 8 kHz. It is also safer to decide a lower frequency below 8 kHz for a high power system. In order to get maximum sampling frequency, the variations in transmission line parameters are neglected. The least frequency allowable for operation can be based on the harmonic performance of the system and the capacitor unbalance. When operating in the levels where the capacitor sources the load current, the voltage across the discharging capacitor keeps dropping. To maintain the loop voltage balanced the voltage across the second capacitor increases and finally the system collapses. Therefore the capacitor should be allowed to discharge only to an extent, such that midpoint voltage always remains at Vdc/2. The minimum operating frequency has to be computed for the maximum current that can be delivered. V. SIMULATION RESULTS

1 1 Ts 2 Ep(k +1) = C vc1 = C vc1(k ) + ic1 2 2 C

En ( k +1) =

( )
(

(23)
2

1 1 Ts C vc 2 2 = C vc 2 ( k ) + ic 2 2 2 C

( 24)

c 2 = E p ( k +1) E n ( k +1)

(25)

Where is the energy normalizing parameter that determines permissible neutral voltage variation. C. Reactive power control The instantaneous reactive power can be predicted from load current predictions.

Q( k ) = e q ( k ) i d ( k ) e d ( k ) i q ( k )

(26)

The reactive power demand is proportional to the reactive current demand. Reactive power control has been examined by introducing a non-zero reactive current component for the reference value. The weighting factor 2 controls the accuracy over reactive power control; thereby it also compensates the power factor variation. The main design constraint for the weighting factor is the total harmonic distortion of load currents. The quadratic minimization function can be defined as,

C = c1 + c 2

(27)

The objectives of the cost function are tracking the reference current trajectories, balancing the capacitor voltages and reactive power compensation. Proposed controller also ensures accurate decoupled control on the load current components. Therefore independent control of real and reactive power is possible. But, the accuracy depends on the weighing factor which is analogous to the linear controller parameters in classic control.

The system approach has been realized in MATLAB. The neutral point capacitor voltage has been balanced with predictive current controller by proper selection of switching states. The system is modified for meeting the reactive power demand. The higher weighting factor implies greater priority to that objective. But, the other performances of the system deteriorate. For example, if 2 is higher, it improves the reactive power compensation, while it results in more harmonic oscillations in the load current. The transient performance of the controller is tested by step response of the system. For that, the d-axis current component is increased by 15A at 0.04 sec and q-axis current is changed by 5A at 0.06sec. The controller settled to the new value in 0.0015sec with no overshoot as shown in fig (4). Consequent changes in output power are shown in fig (5). Fig (6) shows the balanced capacitor voltages. The performance of the controller for a sampling frequency below 8 kHz has been analyzed. THD obtained in the load current is 5.22% for the sampling frequency of 8 kHz. The variation in load current THD related to the sampling frequency is shown in Fig (7).

60 40 ia, id, iq (A) 20 0 -20 -40 0 400 200 Va 0 -200 -400 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 time (S) 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 id ia iq

25 20 THD (%) 15 10 5 0 2 3 4 5 6 Sampling Frequency (kHz) 7 8

Fig 7. Load THD Vs Sampling frequency

Fig 4. Transient current response of the controller. (a) Step response of two axis current, (b) Grid Voltage

20

P(KW)

15

10 Power

inverter currents are weakly coupled, which yield totally independent control of active and reactive powers. Even though the results show a decoupled control over the current components, a steady state error has been observed. This error value depends on the sampling frequency and the weighting factors. APPENDIX DC voltage = 1KV Grid Voltage= 230Vrms DC capacitance, C1= C2 =2mF Line resistance, R=0.5 Line inductance, L=20mH

5 Q(KVAR) 0

-5

REFERENCES
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Time (S) 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

-10 0

[1]

Fig 5. Instantaneous active and reactive power

500.6

500.4

500.2 Vc1, Vc2 (V)

500

499.8

499.6

499.4 0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05 0.06 Time (s)

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

Fig 6. Upper and Lower capacitor Voltages

VI.

CONCLUSION

The results show that the predictive controller gives the fastest current response without any overshoot. It means that, predictive controller is more suitable for transient operating conditions, where other control methods fail to operate. The results show that the d and q dynamics of the

Juan Manuel Carrasco, et.all, Power-Electronic Systems for the Grid Integration of Renewable Energy Sources: A Survey, IEEE Trans. On Ind. Elect., Vol.53, No.4, August 2006. [2] Loubna Yacoubi et all, Kamal Al-Haddad, Linear and Nonlinear Control Techniques for a Three-Phase Three-Level NPC Boost Rectifier, IEEE trans. on Ind.Elect. Vol.53, No.6, Dec 2006. [3] R Kennel, A Linder, Predictive Control of Inverter Supplied Electrical Drives, Power Elect. Specialist Conference, IEEE, June 2000. [4] Haithem Abu-Rub, Jaroslaw Guzinski, Predictive Current Control of Voltage Source Inverters, IEEE trans. on Ind.Elect., Vol.51, No.3, June 2004. [5] Jaime Castello Moreno, Jose M.Espi Huerta, A Robust Predictive Control for Three-Phase Grid Connected Inverters, IEEE trans. Ind.Elect. Vol.56, No.6, June 2009. [6] Yasser Abdel, Robust High bandwidth Discrete-Time Predictive Current Control with Predictive InternalModel- A Unified Approach for Voltage Source PWM Converters, IEEE Trans. On Power Electronics, Vol.23, No.1, Jan 2008. [7] Rene Vargas, Predictive Control of a Three Phase Neutral Point Clamped Inverter , IEEE. Trans. On Ind.Elect. Vol.54, N0.5, Oct 2007. [8] R Krishna, et all, Direct Predictive Current Control of Grid Connected Neutral Point Clamped Inverter for Wave Power Extraction, Int. Symposium on Power Ele. , Ele.drives, automation and motion, IEEE, June 2010. [9] Xiaolin Mao et all, Optimal Variable Switching Frequency Scheme for Reducing Switching Loss in Single Phase Inverters Based on Time Domain Ripple Analysis, IEEE. Trans. On Power Electronics. Vol.24, No.4, April 2009. [10] J.Pou,R.Pindado, Voltage Balancing Strategies for Diode Clamped Multilevel Converter, IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 2004.