Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
Abstract—Direct power control (DPC) and model predictive to the grid voltage vector. Although good steady state per-
control (MPC) are two well known methods to achieve direct formance and quick dynamic response is obtained in VOC,
control of active power and reactive power in PWM rectifiers. it suffers from the tuning work of internal current controllers
They both select a voltage vector, according to a switching table
or by minimizing a cost function, and then apply it in the and relies heavily on the system parameters [6]–[8].
next control period. The use of only one voltage vector during DPC is another kind of high performance power control
one control period leads to high power ripples and variable strategy for PWM rectifiers and its has attracted wide attention
switching frequency, especially in DPC. Recently duty cycle since the birth of 1998 [9]. DPC achieves very quick response
control was proposed in DPC to achieve steady state performance with simple structure by selecting a voltage vector from a
improvement. This paper proposes an improved MPC with duty
cycle control and compared it to prior DPC with duty cycle predefined switching table. As the heuristic table is not very
control in terms of power ripple reduction, dynamic response accurate, DPC presents relatively large power ripples [8], [10],
and robustness against external load disturbance. The duration of [11].
the selected vector is determined by minimizing the active power To overcome the drawback of inaccurate vector selection in
ripple during one control period. Simulation and experimental DPC, recently MPC was proposed to obtain better steady state
results are presented to confirm the theoretical study.
performance [3], [12]–[18]. MPC is similar to DPC in that it
Index Terms—Model predictive control; direct power control; also selects and applies one voltage vector during one control
duty cycle; PWM rectifier period. However, the selected vector is not obtained from a
predefined switching table, but obtained by minimizing a cost
function. In general, the cost function is a linear combination
I. I NTRODUCTION
of active power error and reactive power error. By using the
Three-phase PWM rectifiers have been widely used in system model, the future value of active power and reactive
a variety of industrial applications owing to its advanced power for each discrete switching state can be predicted. The
features, such as sinusoidal input current, small size of input voltage vector producing minimal tracking error of power is
filter, bi-directional power flow and controllable power factor selected as the best voltage vector. It is clear that the selected
[1]–[3]. Many control methods have been proposed to achieve vector from MPC is more accurate and effective than that from
decoupled control of active power and reactive power. One the heuristic switching table in DPC due to the prediction of
of the most popular and mature control methods for PWM powers in the future. The merits of MPC are more pronounced
rectifier is voltage oriented control (VOC) [4], [5], in which in the systems with low switching frequency, high order and
the grid currents are decomposed into active power component long predictions, as shown in [19]–[21]. It is shown that, in
and reactive power component in synchronous frame attached the three-level inverter-fed direct torque control (DTC) drives,
MPC with long predictive horizons achieves more accurate
Manuscript received January 21, 2016; revised May 28, 2016; accepted control of torque and stator flux than conventional DTC
July 25, 2016. Paper 2016-IPCC-0093.R1, presented at the presented at while reducing the switching frequency significantly [22].
the 2015 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, Montreal,
Canada, September 20-24, 2015, and approved for publication in the IEEE Because of the merits of multiple variable control, conceptual
TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Industrial Power simplicity and flexibility to handle nonlinear constraints, MPC
Converter Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. This work has received wide attention throughout the world [12], [20],
was sponsored in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
under Grant 51577003 and 51207003, in part by Beijing Natural Science [23]–[34].
Foundation under grant 3162012, and in part by Beijing Nova Program under Although DPC and MPC are different in the principle of
Grant xx2013001. vector selection, both of them apply only one voltage vector
Y. Zhang is with Inverter Technologies Engineering Research Center of
Beijing, North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China, in the next control period. As a result, relatively high power
and with Collaborative Innovation Center of Electric Vehicles in Beijing, ripples and variable switching frequency can be observed.
and also with Collaborative Innovation Center of Key Power Energy-Saving Furthermore, to achieve relatively satisfactory performance,
Technologies in Beijing (email: yozhang@ieee.org).
Y. Peng and C. Qu are with Inverter Technologies Engineering Research the sampling frequencies of both DPC and MPC have to be
Center of Beijing, North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, high, generally tens of kilohertz. Recently the concept of duty
China (1098665228@qq.com; qcqdhr@sina.com). cycle control was introduced in DPC to achieve steady state
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. performance improvement [8], [15]. For example, the principle
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2016.××××××× of active power ripple minimization is employed to determine
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
ea R L
e
ea R L O b Load
ec
eb a C
ea eb ec
RL ia ib ic Udc
O b ea
ec e
c 3/2 transformation & Pulse - Udc ref
O b
ec
p, q calculation generation
e i tv
PI
Duty cycle
Delay compensation calculation
Fig. 1. Topology of a two-level three-phase AC/DC converter.
v
p k+1 pref
the duration of the selected vector from the switching table in Cost fun. Min. (MPC)/
qref
DPC [6]. qk+1 Switching table (DPC) 0
This paper makes a further step to [6] by replacing the
vector selection with the principle of cost function mini- Fig. 2. Control diagram of DPC/MPC with duty cycle control
mization in MPC. It is expected that better steady state
performance than conventional DPC/MPC and DPC with duty 8000
cycle can be achieved [35], even if relatively high sampling V4 V5
L V6 V1 V2 V3 V4
6000
ea R
frequency is used and short prediction horizon is considered.
dP/dt (kW/s)
eb
4000
A detailed comparative study of DPC and MPC with duty O Load
ec
2000
V0,7
cycle control is carried out in this paper, including steady
ea eb ec ia ib ic
state performance, dynamic response and robustness against 0 Udc
external load disturbance. The features of both methods are −2000
300 -
ref
0 3/2 transformation
60 120 & 180 Pulse
240 Udc
360
identified and confirmed by the simulation and experimental
P, Q calculation generation
results. A comprehensive conclusion is drawn, which is useful 6000
for the selection of appropriate strategy. V3 V4 V5 V6 tv V1 V
4000 PI2
sector Vector
dQ/dt (kVar/s)
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
TABLE I
ACTIVE VECTOR SELECTION FOR THE PROPOSED DPC The active power and reactive power at the next control
period can be easily predicted from (4). For two-level PWM
P Q Selected vector rectifier, it is feasible to evaluate the cost function (5) for
↑ ↑ Vk+3
↑ ↓ Vk−1 each voltage vector online, because there are only 7 different
↓ ↑ Vk+1 voltage vectors. However, the number of predictions can be
↓ ↓ Vk further reduced if the principle in [12] is employed. The best
non-zero (active) voltage vector is the one most close to the
V3(010) V2(110) position of power error vector
Sector 2
k+1 k+1
M (−S0∗ ) = −S ∗ref − (−S ∗ )0
(6)
Sector 3 Sector 1
V4(011) V1(100) where
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
TABLE II
S YSTEM AND C ONTROL PARAMETERS
Z ts
1 2
F (ts ) = pk + f1 t − pref dt Line resistance R 0.3 Ω
tsc 0 Line inductance L 10 mH
Z tsc DC-bus capacitor C 840 µF
1 2
+ pk + f1 ts + f2 (t − ts ) − pref dt (8) Load resistance RL 97 Ω
tsc ts Line-line voltage (RMS) UN 150 V
Line voltage frequency f 50 Hz
where tsc and ts are control period and the duration of the DC voltage Udc 300 V
active vector.
Minimizing the active power ripple is equivalent to mini-
mizing F (ts ). This can be achieved by solving the equation The equations for predicting pk+2 and q k+2 are similar to
dF (ts )/dt = 0. The resulting optimal duration of the active the equations in (10) and (11), which are expressed as
vector is calculated as
2 pref − pk − f2 tsc k+2 k+1 3 h k+1 2 i
− Re conj v k+1 · ek+1
p =p + e
ts = (9) 2L
2f1 − f2
R k+1 k+1
It should be noted that the value of ts is set to zero if it is − p − ωq tsc (13)
L
negative and to tsc if it is bigger than tsc .
−3
q k+2 = q k+1 + Im conj v k+1 · ek+1
2L
D. Vector Sequence
R k+1 k+1
After obtaining the selected voltage vector following the − q + ωp tsc (14)
L
principle introduced in Section III-B, it will be applied for an
optimal duration according to (9) during one control period. where the grid voltage vector at (k + 1)th instant is predicted
It should be noted that the active vector should be followed from (3) as
by an appropriate zero vector with minimal switching jumps. ek+1 = ejωtsc ek (15)
For vectors (110, 011, 101), they should be followed by
(111), while for other vectors (100, 010, 001), they should IV. S IMULATION AND E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
be followed by (000). Hence, no more than one commutation To confirm the effectiveness of the proposed MPC with duty
event occurs simultaneously during one control period. cycle control, both digital simulation and experimental tests
are carried out on a two-level three-phase PWM rectifier. The
E. Delay Compensation results obtained from prior DPC with duty cycle control [6]
It is well known in digital control system that, the actual are also presented for the aim of comparison. The sampling
voltage vector will not be applied until the next control period frequencies for the proposed DPC and MPC with duty cycle
due to the updating mechanism of PWM block. Hence, to control are both 20 kHz and the system and control parameters
mitigate the influence of one-step delay, the state variables are listed in Table II. Although the sampling frequency is
at (k + 1)th instant should be employed to accomplish the high, the average switching frequency is moderate, as shown
control algorithm. In other words, in DPC we should compare in the experimental results. It is possible to operate at lower
pk+1 and q k+1 with their respective reference to select the switching frequency such as 5 to 10 kHz. However, the steady
appropriate vector from the switching table. The predicted state performance would be also degraded, because the average
value of active power and reactive power are expressed as: switching frequency is very low. Hence, for the proposed two
methods, it is recommended to use high sampling frequency
to achieve good steady state performance. The overall control
k+1 k 3 h k 2 i
e − Re conj v k · ek
p =p + diagram of DPC and MPC is illustrated in Fig. 2, where
2L the digital delay compensation has been considered for both
R methods, as introduced in Section III-E.
− pk − ωq k tsc (10)
L
−3 A. Simulation Results
q k+1 = qk + Im conj v k · ek
2L
Fig. 5 presents the simulated responses to external load
R k k disturbance for the proposed DPC and MPC with duty cycle
− q + ωp tsc (11)
L control at 20 kHz sampling frequency. From top to bottom, the
Different from in DPC, in MPC the prediction of pk+1 and curves shown in Fig. 5 are active power and reactive power
q k+1
is only the first step. To compensate the one-step digital (with reference), dc-bus voltage and one-phase grid voltage
delay in MPC, the predicted active power and reactive power and grid current. An external load is applied to the system
in the cost function (5) should be replaced by pk+2 and q k+2 . at t=0.05s. During the dynamic process, the reactive power is
As a result, the cost function should be changed to maintained at zero to achieve unity power factor. It is seen
2 2 that the active power increases quickly to balance the increase
F = pref − pk+2 + 0 − q k+2 (12) in the active power. There is a small voltage drop of around 5
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
1500 1500
P&Q (VA)
1000 P
1000 Q
P&Q (VA)
500
0 500
-500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0
305
-500
Udc/ V
Ua (V))
ia (A))
100 0 0
5
Ua (V))
ia (A))
0 0
-5
-5 -100
-100
-10 -10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
t/s t/s
(a) (a)
1500 1500
P&Q (VA)
1000 P
1000 Q
P&Q (VA)
500
0 500
-500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0
305
-500
Udc/ V
ia (A))
100 0 0
5
Ua (V))
ia (A))
0 0
-5
-5 -100
-100
-10 -10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
t/s t/s
(b) (b)
Fig. 5. Simulated responses to external load disturbance for (a) the proposed Fig. 6. Simulated responses under the condition of stepped changes in active
DPC with duty cycle control at 20 kHz sampling frequency and (b) the power reference for (a) the proposed DPC with duty cycle control at 20 kHz
proposed MPDPC with duty cycle control at 20 kHz sampling frequency. sampling frequency and (b) the proposed MPDPC with duty cycle control at
20 kHz sampling frequency.
vector no. (DPC)
6
V in the dc-bus voltage and it recovers to its reference value
quickly, which confirms the robustness of both methods in 4
rejecting external load disturbance. The dynamic responses of
both methods are very similar. However, it is clear that the 2
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
5
ia /A
-5
2
2
0
0 10 20 30
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Harmonic order
Fig. 9. Experimental setup of two-level PWM rectifier.
(a)
5
control. On the contrary, the low order harmonics in MPC with
duty cycle control are much reduced. The existence of low
ia /A
0
order harmonics in DPC mainly comes from the predefined
switching table, which is not always effective but sometimes
-5
even incorrect. There are some other reasons contributing to
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 the low order harmonics in both methods, such as dead time,
t/s
inaccurate system parameters, AD accuracy and unmodeled
Fundamental ( 50Hz ) = 5.3272, THD = 2.4801%
4
4
factors, etc. In both methods, the current harmonics concen-
3
trate on the sampling frequency of 20 kHz, which provides
Hn /H1 (%)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Harmonic order B. Experimental Tests
(b)
Fig. 8. Simulated harmonic spectrum of grid current at p = 1000 W and Apart from the simulation results, experimental tests are also
q = 0 Var for (a) the proposed DPC with duty cycle control at 20 kHz
sampling frequency and (b) the proposed MPDPC with duty cycle control at
carried out on a two-level PWM rectifier. The experimental set-
20 kHz sampling frequency. up is illustrated in Fig. 9, where a floating point digital signal
processor (DSP) TMS320F28335 is employed to accomplish
the two control methods. During the experiments, all variables
the prior DPC with duty cycle control presents higher and are displayed and recorded using a digital oscilloscope via on-
irregular power ripples, especially in the reactive power. On board DA converter except the grid current, which is measured
the contrary, the power ripples in the proposed MPC with duty directly by a current probe.
cycle control are much smaller and the grid current are also Firstly, the steady state responses of both methods are pre-
more sinusoidal in shape. The selected active vectors for both sented in Fig. 10, where the active power reference is 1000 W
methods are shown in Fig. 7, which are obtained under the and the reactive power reference is zero to achieve unit power
same condition as Fig. 6. It is clearly seen that the vector factor. From top to bottom, the curves shown in Fig.10 are
selected from DPC is irregular and arbitrary. On the contrary, active power reference, active power, reactive power and one
the vector selected from MPC exhibits a regular behavior. phase grid current. It can be seen that the proposed MPC with
The results clearly show that the vector selected from MPC duty cycle control presents better steady state performance
is significantly different from that from DPC, and is more than proposed DPC with duty cycle control, especially in the
effective in reducing power errors. reactive power ripples. A quantitative harmonic analysis of
Fig. 8 illustrates the harmonic spectrum of both methods. active power and reactive power for both methods is illustrated
It is seen that the current THD of the proposed MPC with in Fig. 11. It is seen that most of the low order harmonics
duty cycle control is only 2.48%, while the current THD of of active power in MPC is lower than those of DPC except
prior DPC with duty cycle is as high as 5.46%. It should the 300 Hz harmonics. For the reactive power, the low order
be noted that there are some low order (even and odd) harmonics of DPC are much bigger than those of MPC,
harmonics in both methods, especially in DPC with duty cycle especially the 300 Hz and 600 Hz harmonics.
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
1100
P (W)
P [400W/div] 1000
950
Q [400Var/div]
900
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
ia [10A/div] time (s)
(a)
0.5
P ref [400W/div]
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
P [400W/div]
frequency (Hz)
(a)
Q [400Var/div]
200
ia [10A/div]
100
Q (Var) 0
-100
(b)
Fig. 10. Steady state response of (a) DPC with duty cycle control, (b) -200
proposed MPDPC with duty cycle control. 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
time (s)
Mag (% of mean value of P)
6 DPC MPC
2
At steady state of p=1000 W and q=0 Var, the average
switching frequencies of the presented DPC with duty cycle 0
and MPC with duty cycle control are 8.71 kHz and 8.82 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
frequency (Hz)
kHz, respectively, which are similar to each other and well
below the sampling frequency of 20 kHz. Reducing the (b)
sampling frequency can achieve even lower average switching Fig. 11. Harmonic spectrum of active power and reactive power for (a) DPC
with duty cycle control, (b) proposed MPDPC with duty cycle control.
frequency, but the steady state performance would also be
affected seriously, which is unsuitable for DPC/MPC branched
methods. standard deviation function [39], which is expressed as
v
u N N
!2
The grid current quality of the proposed MPC is also better u1 X 1 X
than that of DPC with duty cycle control, which is confirmed prip = t pi − pi (16)
N i=1 N i=1
by the harmonic spectrum shown in Fig. 12. It is seen that the v
current THD of the proposed MPC is only 2.88%, which is u N N
!2
u1 X 1 X
much lower than the value of 5.77% in the prior DPC with qrip = t qi − qi (17)
duty cycle control. For grid connected applications, the current N i=1 N i=1
THD is generally limited to below 5% [40]. So, the proposed where N is the sampling number of active power and reactive
MPC with duty cycle control well respect the grid codes, while power during a short period of 0.1s. It is seen from Fig. 13 that
the DPC with duty cycle control fails, even if the duty cycle the proposed MPC exhibits much lower power ripples than
control is introduced. In both methods, the current harmonic DPC at both 600 W and 1000 W active power. The power
concentrates on the multiples of 10 kHz, which is similar to ripple reduction is very evident especially in the light load of
SVM-based methods and provides some convenience for the 600 W active power.
filter design. Secondly, the dynamic responses of both methods are com-
pared. Fig. 14 presents the experimental waveform when the
A quantitative comparison of active power and reactive reference value of active power is changed from 600 to 1000
power ripples for both methods at various operating points W suddenly. The reactive power is kept at zero to achieve
is illustrated in Fig. 13. The power ripple is calculated by the unit power factor. It can be seen that both method achieve
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
5 20
Ia /A
0 10
-5 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 VA
t/s DPC MPC
3 40
H n /H1 (%)
2
2
0 20
1
0 10 20 30
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 1000
Harmonic order VA
(a)
Fig. 13. Comparisons of active power ripple and reactive power ripple
for DPC with duty cycle control and the proposed MPDPC with duty cycle
5 control.
Ia /A
-5
P ref [400W/div]
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 P [400W/div]
t/s
Fundamental ( 50Hz ) = 5.4824, THD = 2.8828%
4 4
Q [400Var/div]
3
H n /H1 (%)
2
2 ia [10A/div]
1 0
0 10 20 30
0 (a)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Harmonic order
(b)
Fig. 12. Harmonic spectrum of grid current at p = 1000 W and q = 0 Var P ref [400W/div]
for (a) DPC with duty cycle control, (b) proposed MPDPC with duty cycle P [400W/div]
control.
Q [400Var/div]
decoupled control of active power and reactive power and
they have very similar quick dynamic response. However, the
ia [10A/div]
reactive power ripple in the proposed MPC is much smaller
than that in DPC.
Finally, the robustness against load disturbance is shown
in Fig. 15, where the dc-bus voltage is maintained at 300 V. (b)
An external load of 1000 W is suddenly applied to the PWM Fig. 14. Transient response to step change in active power, (a) DPC with
rectifier and the active power increases quickly to balance the duty cycle control, (b) proposed MPDPC with duty cycle control.
load change. From top to bottom, the curves shown in Fig. 5
are active power, reactive power, dc voltage and grid current.
There is very insignificant voltage drop, confirming the ro- predicting the power error vector caused by zero vector only
bustness of DPC and MPC against external load disturbance. for once, which is much more efficient than the conventional
The dynamic responses of both methods are very similar, but enumeration-based MPC. The duration of the selected active
the proposed MPDPC has smaller power ripples and the grid vector is obtained based on the principle of minimizing the
current is more sinusoidal with less harmonics. active power ripple during one control period. The proposed
MPC with duty cycle control is compared to prior DPC
V. C ONCLUSION with duty cycle control by evaluating their performance in
This paper proposes an improved MPC with active power terms of steady state performance, dynamic response and
ripple minimization. The active vector is selected quickly by robustness against external load disturbance. The simulation
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIA.2016.2596240, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications
10
[33] L. Tarisciotti, P. Zanchetta, A. Watson, J. Clare, M. Degano, and Yongchang Zhang (M’10) received the B.S. degree
S. Bifaretti, “Modulated model predictive control for a three-phase active from Chongqing University, China, in 2004 and the
rectifier,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 1610–1620, 2015. Ph.D. degree from Tsinghua University, China, in
[34] Y. Zhang and H. Yang, “Two-vector-based model predictive torque 2009, both in electrical engineering.
control without weighting factors for induction motor drives,” IEEE From August 2009 to August 2011, he was a
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1381–1390, 2016. Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Technology
[35] Y. Zhang, Y. Peng, and C. Qu, “Comparative study of model predictive Sydney, Australia. He joined North China Univer-
control and direct power control for PWM rectifiers with active power sity of Technology in August 2011 as an associate
ripple minimization,” in Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition professor. Currently he is a full professor and the
(ECCE), 2015 IEEE, 2015, pp. 3823–3830. vice director of Inverter Technologies Engineering
[36] H. Akagi, Y. Kanazawa, and A. Nabae, “Instantaneous reactive power Research Center of Beijing. He has published more
compensators comprising switching devices without energy storage than 100 technical papers in the area of motor drives, pulsewidth modulation
components,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 625–630, 1984. and AC/DC converters. His current research interest is model predictive
[37] A. Bouafia, J.-P. Gaubert, and F. Krim, “Analysis and design of new control for power converters and motor drives.
switching table for direct power control of three-phase pwm rectifier,”
in Proc. 13th Power Electronics and Motion Control Conf. EPE-PEMC
2008, 2008, pp. 703–709.
[38] A. Baktash, A. Vahedi, and M. A. S. Masoum, “Improved switching
table for direct power control of three-phase pwm rectifier,” in Proc. Yubin Peng was born in 1990. He received the
Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conf. AUPEC 2007, 2007, B.S. degree from Beijing Information Science and
pp. 1–5. Technology University in 2013, and the master’s
[39] Y. Zhang and J. Zhu, “Direct torque control of permanent magnet syn- degree from the North China University of Tech-
chronous motor with reduced torque ripple and commutation frequency,” nology, Beijing, China, in 2015, both in electrical
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 235 –248, jan. 2011. engineering.
[40] IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control His research interest is model predictive control
in Electrical Power Systems, IEEE Std. 519-1992, 1993. of three-level PWM rectifiers.
0093-9994 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.