Proceedings of the
2
2005 IEEE Conference on Control Applications
Toronto, Canada, August 28-31, 2005
Study of Advanced Current Control Strategies for Three-Phase
Grid-Connected PWM Inverters for Distributed Generation
Qingrong Zeng and Liuchen Chang, IEEE Senior Member
Abstract — Three-phase PWM voltage-source inverters (VSI)
are widely employed for distributed generation (DG) systems.
Since the voltage at the point of common coupling should not be
regulated by DGs, the current control strategy of grid-
connected inverters plays a dominant role in providing high
quality power to electric grids. The Authors have proposed two
advanced SVPWM-based current controllers to improve the
performance of grid-connected VSIs for DG systems. Three
current control strategies, namely hysteresis current control,
SVPWM-based PI control and SVPWM-based predictive
control, have been developed, implemented, and studied on a
30kW three-phase grid-connected PWM VSI. Effective
compensation for the grid harmonics and for the system
nonlinearity due to control delay and switching dead time are
investigated. The results of computer simulations and
experimental tests are provided to verify and compare the
performances of these three current control strategies.
I. INTRODUCTION
Global demand for electricity is estimated to increase from
13,290 TWh in 2001 to 23,072 TWh in 2025 [1]. With the
Kyoto Accord aiming at reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions, fossil-fuel based power generation alone can no
longer meet the demand for new generation capacity [1],
which presents an unprecedented opportunity for distributed
generation (DG) systems. Most DG systems need power
electronic converters, often referred as inverters, to realize
power conversion, grid interconnection and control
optimization. Pulse-width-modulated (PWM) voltage source
inverters (VSI) are widely applied in DG systems. Inverters
are critical in DG systems for optimizing the control functions
as well as meeting the interconnection and power quality
requirements [2]. The current control of a grid-connected VSI
determines the power quality with which a DG feeds a grid.
Many current control strategies have been developed for
three-phase PWM VSIs [3]-[11]. In most three-phase PWM
VSIs for DG systems, ac motor drives, active filters and
uninterruptible power supplies, current control strategies
have a similar structure with an inner current feedback loop,
accomplishing two basic tasks: the current error
compensation and PWM generation [3]. Current control
strategies can be classified into two major categories:
nonlinear controllers based on close-loop current-type PWM
and linear controllers based on open-loop voltage-type PWM
[3].
As a nonlinear controller, hysteresis current control (HCC)
is widely employed for three-phase PWM VSIs [4]-[6]. With
HCC, current errors are directly used to determine the next
PWM state of the VSI. The current error compensation and
The Research is supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The Authors are with Dept. of Elec.
& Comp. Eng., University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
E3B 5A3. (Phone: 506-447-3145, E-mail: LChang@unb.ca.)
0-7803-9354-6/05/$20.00 ©2005 IEEE
WA5.
PWM generation are carried out in the same control unit at the
same time, rendering the controller a good dynamic response
and an inherent current protection [3]. However, high current
ripples and variable switching frequency usually result in
poor current quality and difficulties in output filter design.
Among linear controllers, current control strategies based
on space vector PWM (SVPWM) are widely employed [7][8].
A SVWPM-based current controller separates current error
compensation and PWM functions, making it possible to
exploit the advantages of SVWPM as well as to
independently design the overall control structure [3].
SVPWM has many advantages such as constant switching
frequency, well defined output harmonic spectrum, optimum
switching patterns, and excellent dc-link voltage utilization
[3][15]. However, as a voltage-type modulator, SVPWM has
a compromised output current quality due to the back-EMF
disturbance of loads/grids and nonlinearity of systems, and
lack of inherent over-current protection [3][7]. To overcome
these drawbacks, the design of current error compensation
becomes critically important. Among the previously
developed linear current controllers, proportional-integral (PI)
regulation and predictive control are two dominant
algorithms for current error compensation. Conventional PI
regulators normally do not have appropriate compensation for
the grid harmonics [8][9], yielding poor output current
waveforms for grid-connected applications. Predictive
control algorithms rely on a deadbeat control for VSI current
control, however, is quite complicated and sensitive to system
parameters [10][11]. Operating in stationary coordinates, a
previously developed direct digital predictive current control
strategy [12] suffers from a degraded performance due to
control delays.
Two advanced and robust SVPWM-based current
controllers were developed by the Authors [7] on the
synchronous rotating d-q reference frame. In this paper, three
current control strategies, i.e. HCC, SVPWM-based PI
control and SVPWM-based predictive control, are studied on
a 30kW three-phase grid-connected PWM VSI.
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
As shown in Fig. 1, the power conversion system for a
30kW three-phase grid-connected DG system has a typical
ac-dc-ac topology with a dc-link boost chopper. A
three-phase diode rectifier converts the variable input ac
voltage into dc voltage. A basic boost chopper maintains the
dc link voltage at an appropriate level to ensure a high quality
current feeding into the grid even at a low ac input voltage. A
typical three-phase six-IGBT full-bridge PWM VSI is
connected to the grid through an inductor filter. The control
platform of the entire system is built on a TI DSP
microcontroller of TMS320LF2407A [14].
1311
 AC RECTIFIER BOOST CHOPPER INVERTER POWER IV. SVPWM-BASED PI CURRENT CONTROL
INPUT GRID
LPA A SVPWM-based linear controller in the synchronous
V
rotating frame can offer an appropriate current control
V LPB
strategy with a high quality output in three-phase grid-
Vgen
LPC
connected VSIs, if the back-EMF harmonics and system
HEAT
SINK
6
nonlinearity due to control delays and switching dead time are
IGBT
DRIVE IGBT GRID well compensated. Two advanced SVPWM-based linear
DRIVE VOLTAGE
BOARD
BOARD SENSOR current control strategies with a PI controller and a predictive
Vgen PWM
Iboost T1, T2 Vdc Idc
PWM 6
Ia Ib Vga Vgb Vgc controller have been developed by the Authors, and are
studied in this paper. They have the same control structure as
INTERFACING BOARD
shown in Fig. 3, however, with different algorithms for
TMS320LF2407A current error compensation. In this section, the
DSP BOARD SVPWM-based PI control strategy is presented.
Fig. 1 Block diagram of a gird-connected power conversion system. A. Control System Configuration
To improve the current control performance, the SVPWM-
III. HYSTERESIS CURRENT CONTROL based PI current controller is developed in d-q synchronous
A basic hysteresis current control was developed and reference frame where all ac variables become dc variables.
implemented in the VSI, as shown in Fig. 2. Three-phase Based on Park Transformation [12], the voltage equations of
output currents of the inverter are detected and compared with a three-phase grid-connected VSI in the synchronous d-q
the corresponding phase current references individually. The reference frame can be described as [7][10][11]:
resulting three current errors are directly used to generate the ­ did
PWM signals for IGBTs through hysteresis comparators. °°vd = L ⋅ dt − ω ⋅ L ⋅ iq + v gd
HCC generates the desired PWM signals for the next control ® (1)
di
cycle so as to maintain the current trajectories within the °vq = L ⋅ q + ω ⋅ L ⋅ id + v gq
hysteresis bands [4]. Clearly, HCC is insensitive to system ¯° dt
where id and iq are output currents in d-axis and q-axis; vd and
iA* + ǻiA PWMA 2 vq are output voltages in d-axis and q-axis; vgd and vgq are grid
vdc
* - voltages in d-axis and q-axis; Ȧ is grid angular frequency; L is
iB + ǻiB PWMB 2 3-Phase
VSI output filter inductance.
- PWMC 2 The SVPWM-based PI current controller is constructed
iC* + ǻiC
based on (1). Fig. 4 depicts the current error compensation
ia - block as part of the developed PI current controller of Fig. 3.
ib
ic In the decoupled d-axis and q-axis current control loops, two
conventional PI controllers are employed to eliminate current
L errors. The grid voltage vector is used in a feed-forward loop
Fig. 2 Block diagram of hysteresis current to compensate for the grid harmonics. The outputs of PI
control strategy for a three-phase
grid-connected PWM VSI.
Grid controllers are inductor filter voltage references VLd* and VLq*
that are superimposed by Vgd and Vgq to generate the inverter
parameters and is extremely simple for implementation.
output voltage references Vd* and Vq* for SVPWM, as
Moreover, due to the closed-loop PWM, HCC offers an
proposed by the Authors. In both the current feedback loop
inherent current protection and usually an outstanding
dynamic response.
However, since the vdc Grid
vdc L
three-phase currents are id * *
vd PWM
independently controlled Current Error 3-Phase
* * SVPWM 6
with a control delay, which iq Compensation vq VSI
virtually eliminates the
Ό iˆaF
ability to generate zero iˆq ia Grid
voltage vectors, the output ˆid 2r ← 3s iˆbF Predictor
& Filter
i b Phase-voltage
current ripples may be iˆcF
Detection
quite large and the total Ό
harmonic distortion (THD) Grid Angle vga
vgb
of the output currents Ό Detection vgc
v̂ gq vgq
could be unacceptably
v̂ gd Predictor v
high for power grids. gd 2r ← 3s

Fig. 3 Block diagram of the proposed SVPWM-based current control system for grid-connected VSIs.

1312
and grid voltage feed-forward loop, a software predictor and at (K+3) can be predicted by (4). In order to eliminate the
filter are employed to estimate the output current and grid effect of phase angle difference between K and (K+3), the
voltage for improved steady state and dynamic performance. prediction is done in the d-q reference frame.
vˆgd,q (K + 3) = 2 ⋅ vgd,q (K ) − vgd,q (K − 3) (4)
id * + ǻid vLd* vd*
PI +
iq * - *
vq*
+ ǻiq PI vLq +
V. SVPWM-BASED PREDICTIVE CURRENT CONTROL
SVPWM-based predictive current control strategy has the
-
same control structure in Fig. 4. A digital predictive algorithm
iˆd iˆq v̂ gd v̂ gq has been developed by the Authors as the current error
compensation block for calculating the output voltage
Fig. 4 Current error compensation of SVPWM-based PI current controller.
references of VSIs so as to eliminate the current error, i.e. to
achieve output current references in each PWM cycle.
B. Sampling and Prediction
According to (1), to achieve the direct and quadrature
In this paper, a dual-timer sampling scheme is employed current references id*(n) and iq*(n) at the end of the next PWM
[7]. As shown in Fig. 5, the sampling frequency is set at 4 cycle, the required output voltages vd*(n) and vq*(n) can be
times the PWM frequency, and the sampling timing is predicted by (6), where id(n) and iq(n) are the actual direct and
synchronized with the initial point A of each PWM cycle. In quadrature currents at the end of the present PWM cycle;
each PWM cycle, an A/D converter (ADC) is activated 4 vgdav(n+1) and vgdav(n+1) are average values of grid voltages
times as indicated by A, B, C, and D in Fig. 5, and the current in the next PWM cycle; Ts is the PWM period; Lm is the
control algorithm is executed only when the A/D conversion modeled inductance of the output filter and should be close to
is finished at point D in order to minimize the control delay. the actual inductance L. The block diagram for this current
This sampling scheme requires a high-speed ADC and well error compensation is shown in Fig. 6. Again, the
designed control codes to guarantee the timely completion of instantaneous values of id,q(n) and vgd,qav(n+1) in (6) have to
the control algorithm. be predicted accurately using the available sampling data, in a
To eliminate the effect of the control delays due to similar way as described in Section IV-B for PI current
sampling and computation, the instantaneous values of output control.
currents at the end of the current PWM cycle and the average
values of grid voltages of the next PWM cycle are predicted. ­ * i d* (n) − i d ( n) i q* (n) + i q ( n)
With the symmetrical SVPWM, the output current of VSI can °v d (n) = Lm ⋅ − ωLm av
+ v gd (n + 1)
° Ts 2
be considered approximately linear from (K-3) to (K+1) ®
° v * ( n) = L i q* (n) − i q (n) i * ( n) + i d ( n)
during each PWM cycle. Then, the current value at (K+1) can ⋅ + ωLm d av
+ v gq (n + 1)
be readily predicted from the sampling values at (K-3) and °¯ q m
Ts 2
(K-1),
id*(n) + vd*(n)
iˆ( K + 1) = 2 ⋅ i ( K − 1) − i ( K − 3) (2) Lm/Ts + +
-
In order to alleviate the control deviation resulted from the + Ȧ Lm
integral part of current error regulators due to the noise and /
nonlinearity of the system, a software RC filter is constructed, + -Ȧ Lm
iq*(n) +
/ vq*(n)
1 3 Lm /Ts + +
iˆF ( K + 1) = ⋅ iˆ( K + 1) + i ( K ) (3)
-
4 4
The average grid voltage in the next PWM cycle is used to iˆd ( n) iˆq (n)
av
av
vˆ gd (n + 1) vˆ gq (n + 1)
generate inverter output voltage references. As shown in Fig.
5, assuming that the grid voltage is linear during one PWM Fig. 6 Current error compensation of the predictive current controller.
cycle, the grid voltage at (K+3) can be approximated as the (6)
average grid voltage in the next PWM cycle. The grid voltage
PWM carrier period PWM carrier period
nth cycle (n+1)th cycle
control delay

A B C D A B C D A
(K-3) (K-2) (K-1) (K) (K+1) (K+2) (K+3) (K+4) (K+5)
Fig. 5 PWM carrier and sampling timing.

1313
 VI. SIMULATION RESULTS 0.02.
Computer simulations have been conducted using PSIM
simulation package for all three current control strategies. Fig.
7 shows the simulated steady-state responses, while Figs. 8 to
10 depict the simulated dynamic responses of the three
current controllers. In all these cases, the fundamental
component of the grid phase voltage is 170sin(120πt),
superposed by a 5th harmonic component 3sin(600πt) and a
7th harmonic component 8sin(840πt); the dc-link voltage is
360V; the output filter inductance is 2mH per phase; the
switching dead time is 4.0uS. With HCC, the switching
frequency is limited up to 10kHz, and the hysteresis band
width is set at 0.3A. With the two SVPWM-based current
controllers, the switching frequency is fixed at 10kHz; the
sampling frequency is 40kHz thus the control delay is 25uS; Fig. 9 Simulation results of the dynamic response of SVPWM-based
the compensation for the switching dead time is embedded in PI control. Upper: step change from 5A rms to 20A rms;
the SVPWM algorithms. In addition, Kp and Ki of PI Lower: step change from 20A rms to 5A rms.
regulators in SVPWM-based PI current controller are 4.0 and

Fig. 10 Simulation results of the dynamic response of SVPWM-based

predictive control. Upper: step change from 5A rms to 20A rms;
Lower: step change from 20A rms to 5A rms.

The simulation results showe that with distorted grid

Fig. 7 Simulation results of the steady-state response of current
controllers with 20A rms current reference. (a) grid voltage of
phase-A (V); (b) inverter output phase-A current controlled by HCC
(A); (c) inverter output phase-A current controlled by
SVPWM-based PI controller (A); (d) inverter output phase-A
current controlled by SVPWM-based predictive controller (A).
Fig. 8 Simulation results of the dynamic response of HCC.
Upper: step change from 5A rms to 20A rms;
Lower: step change from 20A rms to 5A rms.
voltages, the two advanced SVPWM-based current
controllers have much better steady state responses than that
of HCC, and with respect to the dynamic performance, both
HCC and the SVPWM-based predictive current control have
fast dynamic responses while the SVPWM-based PI current
control is inferior to the other two.
VII. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Three current controllers have been implemented and
tested on a 30kW three-phase grid-connected VSI. For all the
laboratory tests, the nominal line-to-line voltage of the
three-phase grid was reduced to 208V/60Hz; the dc-link
voltage was 365V; the output filter inductance was 2mH per
phase; the ADC sampling frequency was 40kHz; the
switching dead time was 4uS.
For the hysteresis current control, the maximum IGBT
switching frequency was set at 10kHz; the hysteresis band
was set at 0.3A; the switching dead time compensation was
not needed for HCC. For the two advanced SVPWM-based
current controllers, the switching IGBT frequency was fixed
at 9.766kHz; the switching dead time was compensated in the
SVPWM algorithms.

1314
A. Steady State Tests at 0.75L, L, and 1.25L, and the output currents with a
Figs. 11 presents the results of steady state tests of the reference of 15A (rms) were recorded for comparison. Fig. 12
three current control strategies, where current references are shows the three-phase output currents with different Lm and
all 20A (rms) with a unity power factor. It can be clearly seen their corresponding current errors in d-q reference frame. It
that both advanced SVPWM-based current controllers yield can be found that when Lm is less than L, the mismatch mainly
much smoother output current waveforms than HCC. With causes steady-state errors, and when Lm is larger than L, the
effective current error compensation algorithms and mismatch causes the steady-sate error and also the current
predictors, the inverter output currents under advanced oscillation which degrades the system stability.
SVPWM are highly sinusoidal even when the grid phase
Table1. Comparison of output current THD for three PWM controllers
voltage has marked low-order harmonics with a voltage THD
of 3.0%. The THD of inverter output currents for the current Current Control Strategy Current Waveform THD
controllers is given in Table 1, where THD is measured up to Hysteresis Control Fig. 12(b) 3.2%
the 51st harmonic. SVPWM-Based PI Control Fig. 12(c) 1.1%
200
SVPWM-Based Predictive Control Fig. 12(d) 1.2%
100

3
40
0

current error in q-axis (A)

2

-100 20
1

-200
0 0
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001

(a) -1
40 -20
-2

20
-40 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
1 401 801 1201 1601
0
current error in d-axis (A)
3
40
-20

current error in q-axis (A)

2

20
-40 1
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001

(b) 0 0
40
-1
-20
20
-2

0 -40 -3
1 401 801 1201 1601 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
current error in d-axis (A)
-20 3
40

current error in q-axis (A)

-40 2
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001
20
(c) 1

40
0 0

20 -1
-20
0 -2

-20
-40
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501
(d)
Fig.11 Experimental results of the steady-state response of the three
current controllers with 20A rms current reference. (a) grid voltage of
Phase-A (V); (b) Phase-A output current controlled by HCC (A); (c)
Phase-A output current controlled by SVPWM-based PI controller (A); (d)
Phase-A output current controlled by SVPWM-based predictive controller
(A); Time: 0.01ms/digit
As well known, the performance of PI controller depends
on the proper choice of Kp and Ki. In the experiments, Kp and
Ki were chosen as 2 and 0.02 respectively. For the
SVPWM-based predictive controller, since it is built on the
knowledge of the system model, its performance is influenced
by the mismatch of the system parameters, which are
represented by the output filter inductance in this paper.
Experimental tests on different modeled inductances have
been conducted to investigate the influence of the filter
inductance mismatch on the predictive controller. In the
experiments, the modeled inductance Lm was successively set
-40 -3
1 401 801 1201 1601 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
current error in d-axis (A)
5001
Fig. 12 Experimental waveforms of the output currents (A) (left) and the
corresponding current errors (A) (right) of SVPWM-based predictive
controller with different modeled inductance. Upper: Lm=0.75L; Middle:
Lm=L; Lower: Upper: Lm=1.25L; Time: 0.01ms/digit.
B. Transient State Tests
In order to evaluate the dynamic responses of three current
controllers, the output current reference of the inverter was
step changed from 5A (rms) to 20A (rms) and then changed
reversely after the inverter operated in steady state. Figs. 13 to
15 present the experimental results of the dynamic responses
for three current controllers respectively. It can be seen that
with the well-designed error compensation and variable
prediction in feedback and feed-forward loops, the effect on
system dynamic response due to the grid harmonics and the
control delay have been greatly alleviated and that the
dynamic responses of the two advanced SVPWM-based
current control strategies are almost as good as that of HCC.

1315
 40
HCC is attractive for its highly simplicity, robustness,
20 extremely fast dynamic response and inherent over-current
0
protection. However, high current ripple and variable
switching frequency are the drawbacks of HCC, which limit
-20
its applications in grid-connected VSIs.
-40
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001
SVPWM-based PI current control offers an excellent
40 steady-state response featured by precise control with zero
steady-state error, low current ripple and highly sinusoidal
waveform. Moreover, the controller is insensitive to system
20

0 parameters since the algorithm does not need system models.

-20
Its dynamic response is slightly inferior to those of HCC and
SVPWM-based predictive current control even though this
-40
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001 can hardly be distinguished in the experimental results.
Fig. 13 Experimental results of the dynamic responses of HCC. Upper: SVPWM-based predictive current control also has a very
step change from 5A rms to 20A rms (A); Lower: step change from 20A good steady-state performance and at the same time, provides
rms to 5A rms (A); Time: 0.01ms/digit. a good dynamic performance. However, its performance is
40 sensitive to system parameters, especially to the output filter
20
inductance L which may vary due to its nonlinearity.

REFERENCES
-20
[1] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook,
-40 April 2004.
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001
[2] L. Chang and H.M. Kojabadi, “Review of interconnection standards for
40
distributed power generation,” Large Engineering Systems Conference
20
on Power Engineering 2002 (LESCOPE’ 02), pp.36 - 40, June 2002.
[3] M. P. Kazmierkowski and L. Malesani, “Current control techniques for
0 three-phase Voltage-Source PWM Converters: A survey,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 45, pp. 691-703, Oct. 1998.
-20
[4] Q. Wang, L. Chang, “PWM control strategies for wind turbine
inverters,” IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer
-40
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001 Engineering 1998 (CCECE’98), vol.1, pp.309 – 312, May 24-28 1998.
Fig. 14 Experimental results of the dynamic responses of [5] T.-W. Chun, M.-K. Choi, “Development of adaptive hysteresis band
SVPWM-based PI controller. Upper: step change from 5A rms to 20A current control strategy of PWM inverter with constant switching
rms (A); Lower: step change from 20A rms to 5A rms (A); Time: frequency,” Proceeding of Eleventh Annual Applied Power Electronics
0.01ms/digit. Conference and Exposition 1996 (APEC '96), vol. 1, pp. 194-199,
March 1996.
40
[6] B.-H. Kwon, B.-D. Min, Jang-Hyoun Youm, “An improved
20
space-vector-based hysteresis current controller,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electronics., vol. 45, pp. 752-760, October 1998.
0 [7] Q. Zeng, L. Chang, P. Song, “SVPWM-based current controller with
grid harmonic compensation for three-phase grid-connected VSI,”
-20 IEEE PESC’04, Vol.4, pp. 2494 – 2500, June 20-25 2004.
[8] S. Song, S. Kang, and N. Hahm, “Implementation and control of grid
-40
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001 connected AC-DC-AC power converter for variable speed wind energy
40 conversion system,” APEC’03, vol. 1, pp.154-158, 2003.
[9] E. Twining and D. G. Holmes, “Grid current regulation of a three-phase
20 voltage source inverter with an LCL input filter,” IEEE Trans.Power
Electron., vol. 18, pp.888-895, May 2003.
0
[10] M. Prodanovic and T. C. Green, “Control and filter design of
-20
three-phase inverters for high power quality grid connection,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 18, pp. 373-380, Jan. 2003.
-40 [11] J. Svensson and M. Lindgren, “Vector current controlled grid
1 501 1001 1501 2001 2501 3001 3501 4001 4501 5001
connected voltage source converter-influence of nonlinearities on the
Fig. 15 Experimental results of the dynamic responses of performance,” IEEE PESC98, vol. 1, pp.531-537, 1998.
SVPWM-based predictive controller. Upper: step change from 5A rms [12] D. G. Holmes, D. A. Martin, “Implementation of a direct digital
to 20A rms (A); Lower: step change from 20A rms to 5A rms (A); Time: predictive current controller for single and three phase voltage source
0.01ms/digit. inverters,” IEEE Thirty-First Annual Meeting of Industry Applications
Conference 1996 (IAS '96), Vol. 2, pp. 906 – 913, Oct. 6-10 1996.
[13] P. C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk and S. D. Sudhoff, Analysis of Electric
VIII. CONCLUSION Machinery, John Wiley & Sons; 2nd edition, 2002.
Three current control strategies, namely hysteresis control, [14] Texas Instruments, TMS320LF/LC240x DSP Controllers Reference
Guide: System and Peripheral, Literature No: SPRU357, Jan. 2000.
SVPWM-based PI control and SVPWM-based predictive [15] H. W. van der Broeck, H.-C. Skudelny, G. V. Stanke, “Analysis and
control, have been developed, implemented and compared on realization of a pulsewidth modulator based on voltage space vectors,”
a 30kW three-phase grid-connected PWM VSI by Authors. IEEE Trans. Industry Application., vol. 24, issue 1, pp.142-150,
Simulation and experimental results present the advantages January-February 1988.
and disadvantages of each current control strategies.

1316