Time‐optimal finite control set model predictive control of non‐isolated DC–DC converters
Abstract The authors propose a time‐optimal finite control‐set model predictive control (FCS‐MPC) formulation, generalised to the three most common non‐isolated DC–DC converters (buck, boost, buck–boost) tracking a constant switching frequency. The generalised switching model is used to formulate na...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | IET Electric Power Applications |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1049/elp2.12456 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846151258495254528 |
|---|---|
| author | Thibaut Harzig Brandon Grainger |
| author_facet | Thibaut Harzig Brandon Grainger |
| author_sort | Thibaut Harzig |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract The authors propose a time‐optimal finite control‐set model predictive control (FCS‐MPC) formulation, generalised to the three most common non‐isolated DC–DC converters (buck, boost, buck–boost) tracking a constant switching frequency. The generalised switching model is used to formulate natural trajectories and the internal dynamic model for all three converters. The proposed FCS‐MPC also allows the control designer to implement current and voltage constraints to limit current spikes and voltage deviations, respectively. The proposed FCS‐MPC is compared to classical FCS‐MPC and boundary controllers that also use natural trajectories for time optimality but at the cost of large voltage deviations. Classical FCS‐MPC, time‐optimal boundary control and the proposed FCS‐MPC have been implemented in PLECS for all three converters. The current constraint does not impact control performance while the voltage constraint improves voltage deviation performances without significantly impacting the control speed compared to time‐optimal boundary control. Finally, a hardware implementation of the proposed FCS‐MPC on a buck converter proves that the control scheme is time optimal and mitigates current spikes while operating at a constant switching frequency at steady‐state. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8272da27e0a9409d82b05c94eb04291d |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1751-8660 1751-8679 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | IET Electric Power Applications |
| spelling | doaj-art-8272da27e0a9409d82b05c94eb04291d2024-11-27T17:03:06ZengWileyIET Electric Power Applications1751-86601751-86792024-11-0118111626163710.1049/elp2.12456Time‐optimal finite control set model predictive control of non‐isolated DC–DC convertersThibaut Harzig0Brandon Grainger1Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USADepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USAAbstract The authors propose a time‐optimal finite control‐set model predictive control (FCS‐MPC) formulation, generalised to the three most common non‐isolated DC–DC converters (buck, boost, buck–boost) tracking a constant switching frequency. The generalised switching model is used to formulate natural trajectories and the internal dynamic model for all three converters. The proposed FCS‐MPC also allows the control designer to implement current and voltage constraints to limit current spikes and voltage deviations, respectively. The proposed FCS‐MPC is compared to classical FCS‐MPC and boundary controllers that also use natural trajectories for time optimality but at the cost of large voltage deviations. Classical FCS‐MPC, time‐optimal boundary control and the proposed FCS‐MPC have been implemented in PLECS for all three converters. The current constraint does not impact control performance while the voltage constraint improves voltage deviation performances without significantly impacting the control speed compared to time‐optimal boundary control. Finally, a hardware implementation of the proposed FCS‐MPC on a buck converter proves that the control scheme is time optimal and mitigates current spikes while operating at a constant switching frequency at steady‐state.https://doi.org/10.1049/elp2.12456controllerspower electronics |
| spellingShingle | Thibaut Harzig Brandon Grainger Time‐optimal finite control set model predictive control of non‐isolated DC–DC converters IET Electric Power Applications controllers power electronics |
| title | Time‐optimal finite control set model predictive control of non‐isolated DC–DC converters |
| title_full | Time‐optimal finite control set model predictive control of non‐isolated DC–DC converters |
| title_fullStr | Time‐optimal finite control set model predictive control of non‐isolated DC–DC converters |
| title_full_unstemmed | Time‐optimal finite control set model predictive control of non‐isolated DC–DC converters |
| title_short | Time‐optimal finite control set model predictive control of non‐isolated DC–DC converters |
| title_sort | time optimal finite control set model predictive control of non isolated dc dc converters |
| topic | controllers power electronics |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1049/elp2.12456 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT thibautharzig timeoptimalfinitecontrolsetmodelpredictivecontrolofnonisolateddcdcconverters AT brandongrainger timeoptimalfinitecontrolsetmodelpredictivecontrolofnonisolateddcdcconverters |