Current model predictive fault-tolerant control for grid-connected photovoltaic system

IF 1.8 Q4 ENERGY & FUELS
AIMS Energy Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3934/energy.2022015
Abdulrahman J. Babqi, Nasimullah, A. Althobaiti, H. Alkhammash, A. Ibeas
{"title":"Current model predictive fault-tolerant control for grid-connected photovoltaic system","authors":"Abdulrahman J. Babqi, Nasimullah, A. Althobaiti, H. Alkhammash, A. Ibeas","doi":"10.3934/energy.2022015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the performance of the current model predictive control (CMPC) for controlling a two-stage transformerless grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) system under grid fault conditions. A maximum power point tracking (MPPT) controller was used to extract the maximum power of the PV panel. To stabilize the DC link and generate the reference current values, a proportional-integral (PI) controller was used. The CMPC strategy was implemented to control the output current of the inverter that connects the PV system to the utility grid. The system and control strategy were simulated via a MATLAB/Simulink environment. The performance of the proposed control strategy was investigated under fault conditions between the three-phase two-level inverter and the grid. Moreover, to validate the capability of the CMPC, comparative case studies were conducted between CMPC, PI, and sliding mode control (SMC) under grid fault. Case studies' results showed that under grid fault, CMPC did not introduce any overshoot or undershoot in the PV output DC current and power. However, PI and SMC produced undershoots of almost 15 kW for the output power and 45 A for the output current. Under the fault conditions, the active output power and three-phase current recovery time of the inverter was 50 ms using CMPC, compared to PI and SMC with recovery times of 80 ms and 60 ms, respectively. Moreover, a voltage dip of 75 V at the DC link voltage was recorded with CMPC under faulty conditions, while the voltage dips for PI and SMC were around 180 V.","PeriodicalId":45696,"journal":{"name":"AIMS Energy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIMS Energy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2022015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This paper investigates the performance of the current model predictive control (CMPC) for controlling a two-stage transformerless grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) system under grid fault conditions. A maximum power point tracking (MPPT) controller was used to extract the maximum power of the PV panel. To stabilize the DC link and generate the reference current values, a proportional-integral (PI) controller was used. The CMPC strategy was implemented to control the output current of the inverter that connects the PV system to the utility grid. The system and control strategy were simulated via a MATLAB/Simulink environment. The performance of the proposed control strategy was investigated under fault conditions between the three-phase two-level inverter and the grid. Moreover, to validate the capability of the CMPC, comparative case studies were conducted between CMPC, PI, and sliding mode control (SMC) under grid fault. Case studies' results showed that under grid fault, CMPC did not introduce any overshoot or undershoot in the PV output DC current and power. However, PI and SMC produced undershoots of almost 15 kW for the output power and 45 A for the output current. Under the fault conditions, the active output power and three-phase current recovery time of the inverter was 50 ms using CMPC, compared to PI and SMC with recovery times of 80 ms and 60 ms, respectively. Moreover, a voltage dip of 75 V at the DC link voltage was recorded with CMPC under faulty conditions, while the voltage dips for PI and SMC were around 180 V.
并网光伏系统的电流模型预测容错控制
本文研究了电网故障条件下两级无变压器并网光伏系统的电流模型预测控制性能。采用最大功率点跟踪(MPPT)控制器提取光伏板的最大功率。为了稳定直流链路并产生参考电流值,采用了比例积分(PI)控制器。采用CMPC策略对光伏系统与电网连接的逆变器输出电流进行控制。在MATLAB/Simulink环境下对系统和控制策略进行了仿真。在三相双电平逆变器与电网发生故障的情况下,研究了所提出的控制策略的性能。此外,为了验证CMPC的能力,在电网故障情况下,将CMPC、PI和滑模控制(SMC)进行了比较。案例分析结果表明,在电网故障情况下,CMPC不引入光伏输出直流电流和功率过调或过调。然而,PI和SMC的输出功率和输出电流的差值分别接近15kw和45a。在故障条件下,采用CMPC逆变器的有功输出功率和三相电流恢复时间为50 ms,而采用PI和SMC的有功输出功率和三相电流恢复时间分别为80 ms和60 ms。此外,在故障条件下,CMPC在直流链路电压处记录了75 V的电压下降,而PI和SMC的电压下降约为180 V。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AIMS Energy
AIMS Energy ENERGY & FUELS-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: AIMS Energy is an international Open Access journal devoted to publishing peer-reviewed, high quality, original papers in the field of Energy technology and science. We publish the following article types: original research articles, reviews, editorials, letters, and conference reports. AIMS Energy welcomes, but not limited to, the papers from the following topics: · Alternative energy · Bioenergy · Biofuel · Energy conversion · Energy conservation · Energy transformation · Future energy development · Green energy · Power harvesting · Renewable energy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信