dc.creatorJudewicz, Marcos
dc.creatorGonzález, Sergio Alejandro
dc.creatorFischer, Jonatan Roberto
dc.creatorMartínez, Juan Francisco
dc.creatorCarrica, Daniel Oscar
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-10T16:06:22Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-15T03:25:10Z
dc.date.available2021-05-10T16:06:22Z
dc.date.available2022-10-15T03:25:10Z
dc.date.created2021-05-10T16:06:22Z
dc.date.issued2020-10
dc.identifierJudewicz, Marcos; González, Sergio Alejandro; Fischer, Jonatan Roberto; Martínez, Juan Francisco; Carrica, Daniel Oscar; Generalised predictive current-mode control of passive front-end boost-type converters; John Wiley & Sons Ltd; IET Power Electronics; 14; 3; 10-2020; 666-679
dc.identifier1755-4535
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/131759
dc.identifierCONICET Digital
dc.identifierCONICET
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/4339825
dc.description.abstractIn this work, an average current-mode control strategy based on a generalised predictive control formulation for passive front-end three-phase boost-type converters is proposed. A novel design procedure for the generalised predictive control strategy is introduced which considers both the cost function and disturbance model as design parameters to set the controller's dynamic response and robustness against component variations. A maximum robustness criterion was used for achieving stability up to a 70% inductance reduction with maximum possible bandwidth. The proposed strategy was compared against both a PI and a predictive deadbeat average current-mode control using both simulations and experimental results on a (Formula presented.) converter. The generalised predictive control presented less performance variations between different operating points than the PI controller. Also, the proposed strategy is more robust than the predictive deadbeat strategy, showing a better transient response with a 50% inductance reduction and remained stable for a 71% inductance reduction, while the predictive deadbeat could not. Finally, the proposed strategy achieved a 1.4% output voltage load transient response for a (Formula presented.) load power step, and a 2.8% output voltage line transient response for a (Formula presented.) input voltage step, outperforming existing state-of-the-art strategies.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1049/pel2.12054
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pel2.12054
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectgeneralized predictive control
dc.subjectboost converter
dc.subjectpredictive current control
dc.titleGeneralised predictive current-mode control of passive front-end boost-type converters
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución