{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027247956403269755, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.923387096774194, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the inherent relationship between finite control set model predictive control and SVM-based deadbeat control for power converters

Deadbeat control (DBC) has been known for decades due to its conceptual simplicity and good performance. Recently finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) is emerging as a powerful strategy for control of power converters. Different from DBC, which uses a modulator such as space vector modulation (SVM), FCS-MPC directly obtained the optimal switching states of power converters by minimizing a cost function. Several improved versions of FCS-MPC have been proposed to improve the steady state performance by introducing two or three vectors during one control period. This paper investigates the inherent relationship between SVM-DBC and multiple-vector FCS-MPC. It is found that with the aim of tracking error minimization, the two kinds of predictive methods can be unified in one frame, where the vector sequence and duration in FCS-MPC can be easily obtained from SVM-DBC. In other words, under some special cases, FCS-MPC and its improved versions can be considered as special cases of SVM-DBC. This is the main contribution of this paper, because DBC and FCS-MPC are previously studied separately. The theoretical study is confirmed by the analysis on state-of-the-art DBC and FCS-MPC and supported by the selected simulation study and experimental tests from a three-phase two-level voltage source PWM rectifier.