A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF

Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Jianfeng Yang [verfasserIn] Yang Liu [verfasserIn] Rui Yan [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	active power filter model predictive control power quality finite control set- model predictive control continuous control set model predictive control error analyses

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Frontiers in Energy Research - Frontiers Media S.A., 2014, 9(2021)
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:9 ; year:2021

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ057504601

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ057504601
003	DE-627
005	20230308213330.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ057504601
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Jianfeng Yang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	2	\|a A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny.
650		4	\|a active power filter
650		4	\|a model predictive control
650		4	\|a power quality
650		4	\|a finite control set- model predictive control
650		4	\|a continuous control set model predictive control
650		4	\|a error analyses
653		0	\|a General Works
653		0	\|a A
700	0		\|a Yang Liu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Rui Yan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Frontiers in Energy Research \|d Frontiers Media S.A., 2014 \|g 9(2021) \|w (DE-627)768576768 \|w (DE-600)2733788-1 \|x 2296598X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:9 \|g year:2021
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 9 \|j 2021

Indexfelder

author_variant	j y jy y l yl r y ry
matchkey_str	article:2296598X:2021----::cmaioofntcnrleadotnosotostoepeitvcnrlceefroep
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057504601 (DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jianfeng Yang verfasserin aut A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny. active power filter model predictive control power quality finite control set- model predictive control continuous control set model predictive control error analyses General Works A Yang Liu verfasserin aut Rui Yan verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Energy Research Frontiers Media S.A., 2014 9(2021) (DE-627)768576768 (DE-600)2733788-1 2296598X nnns volume:9 year:2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2021
spelling	10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057504601 (DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jianfeng Yang verfasserin aut A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny. active power filter model predictive control power quality finite control set- model predictive control continuous control set model predictive control error analyses General Works A Yang Liu verfasserin aut Rui Yan verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Energy Research Frontiers Media S.A., 2014 9(2021) (DE-627)768576768 (DE-600)2733788-1 2296598X nnns volume:9 year:2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2021
allfields_unstemmed	10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057504601 (DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jianfeng Yang verfasserin aut A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny. active power filter model predictive control power quality finite control set- model predictive control continuous control set model predictive control error analyses General Works A Yang Liu verfasserin aut Rui Yan verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Energy Research Frontiers Media S.A., 2014 9(2021) (DE-627)768576768 (DE-600)2733788-1 2296598X nnns volume:9 year:2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2021
allfieldsGer	10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057504601 (DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jianfeng Yang verfasserin aut A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny. active power filter model predictive control power quality finite control set- model predictive control continuous control set model predictive control error analyses General Works A Yang Liu verfasserin aut Rui Yan verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Energy Research Frontiers Media S.A., 2014 9(2021) (DE-627)768576768 (DE-600)2733788-1 2296598X nnns volume:9 year:2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2021
allfieldsSound	10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057504601 (DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jianfeng Yang verfasserin aut A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny. active power filter model predictive control power quality finite control set- model predictive control continuous control set model predictive control error analyses General Works A Yang Liu verfasserin aut Rui Yan verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Energy Research Frontiers Media S.A., 2014 9(2021) (DE-627)768576768 (DE-600)2733788-1 2296598X nnns volume:9 year:2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 9 2021
language	English
source	In Frontiers in Energy Research 9(2021) volume:9 year:2021
sourceStr	In Frontiers in Energy Research 9(2021) volume:9 year:2021
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	active power filter model predictive control power quality finite control set- model predictive control continuous control set model predictive control error analyses General Works A
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Frontiers in Energy Research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Jianfeng Yang @@aut@@ Yang Liu @@aut@@ Rui Yan @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	768576768
id	DOAJ057504601
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ057504601</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308213330.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ057504601</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jianfeng Yang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">active power filter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">model predictive control</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">power quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">finite control set- model predictive control</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">continuous control set model predictive control</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">error analyses</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">General Works</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yang Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rui Yan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Frontiers in Energy Research</subfield><subfield code="d">Frontiers Media S.A., 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2021)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)768576768</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2733788-1</subfield><subfield code="x">2296598X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Jianfeng Yang
spellingShingle	Jianfeng Yang misc active power filter misc model predictive control misc power quality misc finite control set- model predictive control misc continuous control set model predictive control misc error analyses misc General Works misc A A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF
authorStr	Jianfeng Yang
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)768576768
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2296598X
topic_title	A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF active power filter model predictive control power quality finite control set- model predictive control continuous control set model predictive control error analyses
topic	misc active power filter misc model predictive control misc power quality misc finite control set- model predictive control misc continuous control set model predictive control misc error analyses misc General Works misc A
topic_unstemmed	misc active power filter misc model predictive control misc power quality misc finite control set- model predictive control misc continuous control set model predictive control misc error analyses misc General Works misc A
topic_browse	misc active power filter misc model predictive control misc power quality misc finite control set- model predictive control misc continuous control set model predictive control misc error analyses misc General Works misc A
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Frontiers in Energy Research
hierarchy_parent_id	768576768
hierarchy_top_title	Frontiers in Energy Research
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)768576768 (DE-600)2733788-1
title	A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ057504601 (DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a
title_full	A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF
author_sort	Jianfeng Yang
journal	Frontiers in Energy Research
journalStr	Frontiers in Energy Research
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Jianfeng Yang Yang Liu Rui Yan
container_volume	9
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Jianfeng Yang
doi_str_mv	10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparison of finite control set and continuous control set model predictive control schemes for model parameter mismatch in three-phase apf
title_auth	A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF
abstract	Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny.
abstractGer	Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny.
abstract_unstemmed	Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
title_short	A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF
url	https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364 https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X
remote_bool	true
author2	Yang Liu Rui Yan
author2Str	Yang Liu Rui Yan
ppnlink	768576768
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364
up_date	2024-07-04T01:55:37.566Z
_version_	1803611681658503168
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ057504601</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308213330.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ057504601</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jianfeng Yang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Model predictive control (MPC) methods are widely used in the power electronic control field, including finite control set model predictive control (FCS-MPC) and continuous control set model predictive control (CCS-MPC). The degree of parameter uncertainty influence on the two methods is the key to evaluate the feasibility of the two methods in power electronic application. This paper proposes a research method to analyze FCS-MPC and CCS-MPC’s influence on the current prediction error of three-phase active power filter (APF) under parameter uncertainty. It compares the performance of the two model predictive control methods under parameters uncertainty. In each sampling period of the prediction algorithm, different prediction error conditions will be produced when FCS-MPC cycles the candidate vectors. Different pulse width modulation (PWM) results will be produced when CCS-MPC solves the quadratic programming (QP) problem. This paper presents the simulation results and discusses the influence of inaccurate modeling of load resistance and inductance parameters on the control performance of the two MPC algorithms, the influence of reference value and state value on prediction error is also compared. The prediction error caused by resistance mismatch is lower than that caused by inductance mismatch, more errors are caused by underestimating inductance values than by overestimating inductance values. The CCS-MPC has a better control effect and dynamic performance in parameter mismatch, and the influence of parameter mismatch is relatively tiny.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">active power filter</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">model predictive control</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">power quality</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">finite control set- model predictive control</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">continuous control set model predictive control</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">error analyses</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">General Works</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yang Liu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rui Yan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Frontiers in Energy Research</subfield><subfield code="d">Frontiers Media S.A., 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2021)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)768576768</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2733788-1</subfield><subfield code="x">2296598X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/218a673978bf4c19bbb3c7ae291ed90a</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.727364/full</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2296-598X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3995886

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

A Comparison of Finite Control Set and Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control Schemes for Model Parameter Mismatch in Three-Phase APF

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?