This study proposes highperformance voltage controller design that employs a capacitor current control model for singlephase standalone inverters. The singlephase standalone inverter is analyzed via modeling, which is then used to design the controller. A design methodology is proposed to maximize the bandwidth of the feedback controller. Subsequently, to compensate for the problems caused by the bandwidth limitations of the controller, an error transfer function that includes the feedback controller is derived, and the stability of the repetitive control scheme is evaluated using the error transfer function. The digital repetitive controller is then implemented. The simulation and experimental results show that the performance of the proposed controller is high in a 1.5 kW singlephase standalone inverter prototype.
1. Introduction
Standalone type inverters are widely used to supply electrical power at places with no grid connections. Moreover, they can be used for emergency power supply under grid power fault conditions. Therefore, the output waveforms of these inverters must be sinusoidal, similar to those of the ac supply of commercial utility lines.
Recently the nonlinear loads of residential electrical loads are increasing dramatically because of the introduction of electronic loads, thus leading to problems such as voltage variations and waveform distortion. These problems can result in steadystate errors and distortions in supply voltage waveform in standalone type inverters. Therefore, control strategies for standalone type inverters have been proposed to overcome these problems
[1

31]
.
Typically, the structure of an inverter output voltage controller comprises multiple feedback loops rather than a single feedback loop. Although the response of an inverter is faster with a single feedback loop, a multiple feedback loop is more advantageous in shutting off overcurrent and improving the transient response of inductor
[1

8]
. The multiple feedback loop control method is widely used by researchers because of the ease of implementation and good performance
[9
,
10]
. A multiple feedback loop controller is typically composed of voltage control in the outer loop and current control in the inner loop. Numerous control strategies such as PI
[9
,
10]
, predictive control
[11
,
12]
, deadbeat control
[13
,
14]
, and repetitive control
[15

33]
are used for controlling the outer and inner loops. However, these controllers have a problem to make a design of controller optimally, which should be considered on both outer loop and inner loop.
Generally, a repetitive control scheme is used to compensate the periodic components at multiples of the electrical fundamental frequency. Studies on the repetitive control scheme can be classified into two categories: those focusing on compensating periodic components using the repetitive control scheme
[15

26]
and those focusing on improving the repetitive control scheme
[27

33]
. This study belongs to the first category. Numerous studies exist on controlling the output voltage of standalone inverters. In order to reduce steadystate errors, this controller can be used directly with an openloop SPWM inverter
[15]
. A zerophase oddharmonic repetitive controller has been proposed to reduce data memory usage and ensure faster convergence of the tracking error
[16
,
17]
. Moreover, this controller can be employed in uninterruptible power supply (UPS) inverters to supply sinusoidal voltage under nonlinear loads
[18

23]
. Further, by connecting the repetitive controller in parallel, steady state and rapid response can be achieved and harmonic components can be reduced. In
[24]
, both repetitive control and resonance control schemes were used to achieve rapid response. Also, control structure of combining with PI controller and repetitive controller is researched by
[25
,
26]
for reducing the output voltage distortion. However, those studies are just focused on repetitive controller’s performance with feedforward controller for diminishing nonlinear characteristics without considering on feedback controller’s performance.
In this study, analytical design method is proposed for performance improvement of output voltage controller in the stationary reference frame. The controller consists of both multiple feedback controller and feedforward controller. The feedforward controller is chosen as repetitive controller, and the multiple feedback controller is selected as PI controller at the outer loop and TypeIII compensator at the inner loop. Prior to designing the controller, the inverter is modeled for comparing capacitor and inductor current control models, and a Type III compensatorbased feedback controller is designed. Thereafter, a plugin repetitive controller is designed to compensate the frequency component, which cannot be handled with a feedback controller alone. In order to verify the effectiveness of the designed controllers, simulations were performed using the PSIM simulation software package. Experiments are conducted with a 1.5 kW singlephase standalone inverter prototype to verify the proposed control strategy.
2. Single Phase Inverter Modeling and Controller Design
 2.1 Modeling of singlephase inverter
Singlephase inverters with two types of controllers are shown in
Fig. 1
. Input voltage is usually supplied by lithiumion or lead batteries. They are composed of four switches (
S_{1}, S_{2}, S_{3}, S_{4}
), an output filter inductor (
L
), an output filter capacitor (
C
), an inductor parasitic resistance (
R_{L}
), and a capacitor parasitic resistance (
R_{c}
). The output filter plays a role in rejecting switching noise. The singlephase inverter uses the multiloop control method in which the outer loop is the capacitor voltage control loop and the inner loop is either capacitor current or inductor current control loop, as shown in
Fig. 1
. In this study, the implemented controller is a digital controller. Therefore, the voltage and current controllers can be adjusted. Because digital controllers are different from analog controllers, they must consider digital delay effects. These effects are generated owing to sampling of the control variables, computation of the control algorithm, updating of the pulsewidth modulation (PWM) signal in single PWM switching mode
[25]
.
Schematic of singlephase standalone inverter.
The inverter must be first modeled for designing the controller. The two types of inverters can be modeled from
Fig. 1
. The inductor current control model can be given by (1), and the capacitor current control model can be obtained as (2).
where,
V_{dc}
is inverter dclink voltage, and
u_{c}
represents the inverter output voltage before the
LC
filter is scaled by dclink voltage.
In order to analyze the characteristics of these models, the bode plots of both duty ratio to voltage and duty ratio to current of each model are needed. There is no difference of the bode plot of duty ratio to voltage between these models. But the bode plot of duty ratio to current has a different characteristics of frequency response as like
Fig. 2
. The
Fig. 2
shows the bode plot of duty ratio to current. The magnitude and phase vary between 10 Hz and 1000 Hz in the inductor current control model whereas they are nearly the same in the capacitor current control model according to load power. Therefore, the capacitor current control model is more independent of load than the inductor current control model and thus is more suitable for controller design.
Frequency response of duty ration to current: (a) Capacitor current control model; (b) Inductor current control model
 2.2 Design of controller for singlephase inverter
As mentioned above, the capacitor current control model is more appropriate for the controller of this study; thus, the inverter control block diagram shown in
Fig. 1(b)
is selected. The purpose of a singlephase inverter is to supply a stable sinusoidal voltage. The multiple feedback loop control strategy is selected for controlling the singlephase inverter. The outer loop
G_{dcv}
(
z
) is controlled through a PI controller that is easy to implement and exhibits good performance. The inner loop
G_{dci}
(
z
) is implemented with a Type III compensator. The Type III compensator can boost the phase and gain of the controller and enables analytic controller design. The conventional PI controller, namely, sdomain expression, is given by Eq. (3). The voltage controller
G_{dcv}
(
z
) used in this study is given by Eq. (4) by converting the sdomain to the zdomain.
where,
v^{*}_{ref}
is the reference output voltage,
i^{*}_{ref}
is the reference inductor current. Further,
k_{i}
and
_{kp}
are the PI controller gains, and
T_{s}
is the control period.
The switching frequency is denoted as fs, and the maximum bandwidth of the outer loop controller is limited to approximately fs/50
[34

36]
. However, the bandwidth of the outer loop voltage controller is dependent on the bandwidth of the inner loop current controller. Therefore, the design of the inner loop controller must be optimized, and that affects control performance. The inner loop controller
G_{ci}
(
z
) must be optimized for tracking the voltage controller output. Moreover, the maximum bandwidth of the inner loop controller is limited to approximately fs/10 in the digital controller
[34

36]
. Therefore, the inner loop controller must be analytic control design to ensure optimal performance. In this case, the Type III compensator is more suitable than other types of compensators because the phase boost can range from 0º to 180º in the highfrequency region. Therefore, the phase near the crossover frequency can primarily be determined by the phase of
G_{ci}
(
z
). In this study, the current controller is designed such that the targeted phase margin is 80º at the crossover frequency. The results of the design are shown in
Fig. 3
. As shown in
Fig. 3
, the crossover frequency and the phase margin, which are the bandwidth and the phase margin of the system, satisfy the design specifications.
Compensated frequency response of current controller
3. Repetitive Controller Design
As mentioned above, the capacitor current control model is more independent of loads than the inductor current control model. Accordingly, the capacitor current controller achieves high quality sinusoidal voltage regulation. However, both residential and industrial applications primarily have nonlinear loads. The nonlinear characteristics distort the output voltage thus resulting in quality degradation because a conventional controller cannot completely compensate the distortion. In order to compensate the harmonics, a plugin type repetitive controller is used in this study for supplying highquality voltage. Conventional repetitive controllers are compared in terms of frequency response, and the most suitable repetitive controller is selected.
 3.1 Repetitive controller components selection
The repetitive control method, which is based on the internal model principle, is widely used to obtain very accurate reference tracking for closedloop control systems in which the tracking error is repeated periodically
[25]
. A repetitive controller can be divided into three parts, as shown in
Fig. 4
. First, the data saving section is used for storing data during the sampling period of fundamental frequency for eliminating repetitive errors to obtain the internal model. Second, the data filtering part rejects harmonics on the basis of the stability factor
q
(
z
). Third, the output scaling part is obtained by evaluating the system model gain of the repetitive controller
G_{f}
(
z
). Moreover, according to previous research, there are two types of repetitive controllers, as shown in
Fig. 4(a)
and
Fig. 4(b)
. The two types of repetitive controllers are represented as follows:
Types of repetitive controllers: (a) Plugin repetitive structure; (b) Cascade repetitive structure.
where
L
is the constant that compensates the time delay effect.
The timedelay effects are caused by the digital PWM update and the computation delay. Further,
L
leads the actual error
[25]
. In addition, as can be seen from (5) and (6) and
Fig. 8
, it differs with the type of repetitive controller used. Stability factor
q
(
z
) such as a low pass filter (LPF) typically rejects harmonic components. When
q
(
z
) is an
LPF,
Fig. 5
shows the frequency response of
G_{rp}
(
z
). For (6), we can see a deviation from the original source in the magnitude and phase in the high frequency region. The harmonic rejection performance of (5) is better than that of (6). Therefore, in this study, the repetitive controller given by (5) is chosen. There are many types of stability factors
q
(
z
) in a repetitive controller. The stability factors are given by
Comparison of frequency responses of repetitive controllers.
Fig. 6
compares the frequency responses of (7), (8), and (9) up to the Nyquist frequency. Further,
q_{cons}
(
z
) is the magnitude of the repetitive controller output amplified at allfrequency range, and the repetitive controller has zero phase delay whereas
q_{lpf}
(
z
) is the magnitude of the repetitive controller output in the lowfrequency range and reduces from the cutoff frequency range, and the phase of the repetitive controller is delayed in the highfrequency range. Further,
q_{nt}
(
z
) is the magnitude of the repetitive controller output equaling that of an LPF, and the repetitive controller has zero phase delay. In this study, the stability factor is chosen to be
q_{nt}
(
z
).
Comparison of frequency responses of repetitive controllers: (a) Constant type stability factor; (b) Low pass filter type stability factor; (c) Zero phase delay low pass filter type stability factor.
 3.2 Design of repetitive controller
The proposed repetitive control algorithm is shown in
Fig. .
★The control algorithm includes a plugin repetitive control scheme such as a feedforward structure. In
Fig. 7
,
T_{v}
(
z
) is defined as follows:
Plugin repetitive control scheme.
In order to design a stable controller, the relationship between the reference input voltage (v*) and the voltage error (
v_{err}
) can be obtained from
Fig. 7
, which is similar to the form derived in
[25]
, as follows:
If all the magnitudes of the roots for
G_{e}
(
z
) are less than unity, all the poles of
G_{e}
(
z
) are located in the unit circle in the zdomain so that
G_{e}
(
z
) remains stable. In that situation, the stability of
G_{e}
(
z
) depends on
a^{rp}
(
z
) and
b_{rp}
(
z
). The roots of the denominator of
a_{rp}
(
z
) are identical to the roots of
T_{v}
(
z
). Hence, the roots of the denominator of
a_{rp}
(
z
) are located within the unit circle as long as
T_{v}
(
z
) is stable. Accordingly, the stability of
G_{e}
(
z
) is determined by the roots of
b_{rp}
(
z
). Let the function of the roots of
H
(
z
) be defined as follows:
In order to design a stable repetitive controller, the design parameters
L
,
q
(
z
), and
G_{f}
(
z
) must be selected to satisfy (14).
Fig. 8
shows a comparison of the trajectories of the roots up to the Nyquist frequency (10 kHz) at different values of
G_{f}
(
z
). In
Fig. 8
, if
G_{f}
(
z
) is less than 0.2, the trajectories of the roots converge into the unit circle. Accordingly, the repetitive control system is considered to be stable because condition (14) is satisfied.
Fig. 8
shows the relationship between
v
^{*}
and the output voltage
v_{o}
of the repetitive controller.
Fig. 9
shows the depths of each notch at multiples of 60 Hz. This indicates that the repetitive controller can effectively block the repetitive error.
Trajectories for the root of H(z).
Frequency response of G_{e} (z).
4. Simulation Results
In order to investigate the effectiveness of the designed controllers, simulations were performed using the PSIM simulation software package.
All the parameters used in the simulation are identical to the values given in
Table 1
.
Fig. 10
shows the simulation results of the repetitive controller with the inductor current control model. It shows the results for a load of 1500 W, and RMS of the output voltage and peaktopeak magnitude of the voltage error are 220 V and approximately 110 V, respectively.
Fig. 11
. shows the simulation results with the capacitor current control model as load.
Singlephase standalone inverter parameter
Singlephase standalone inverter parameter
Simulation results with inductor current control model under 1.5 kW loads.
Simulation results with capacitor current control model under 1.5 kW loads.
It shows the results for a load of 1.5 kW, and the RMS of the output voltage is 220 V. Further, the peaktopeak magnitude of the voltage error is approximately 30 V.
Figs. 12
and
13
show the simulation results under different nonlinear load conditions. Without the repetitive controller, the peaktopeak magnitude of the current error is approximately 38 V, as can be seen in
Fig. 12(a)
. However, with the designed repetitive controller, the peaktopeak magnitude of the voltage error is limited to 1.5 V, as can be seen in
Fig 12(b)
. Further, the total harmonic distortion (THD) varies from 0.08% to 0.04%.
Simulation results under nonlinear loads: (a) without and (b) with repetitive controller.
Simulation results under step nonlinear loads: (a) without and (b) with repetitive controller.
Before using the repetitive controller, the peaktopeak magnitude of the voltage error is approximately 38 V, as shown in
Fig. 13(a)
. However, with the designed repetitive controller, the peaktopeak current errors are limited to 4 V. Moreover, the THD varies from 3.8% to 1.3%, and the RMS value varies from 216 V to 219 V.
5. Experimental Results
The proposed control scheme has been tested with a 1.5kW singlephase inverter whose parameters are the same as the values in
Table 1
. The SKM75GM128D IGBT module manufactured by SEMIKRON was chosen as the switch, and the switching frequency is 20 kHz. The TMS320F28335 32bit floatingpoint digital signal processor (DSP) manufactured by Texas Instruments was used as the digital controller. Numerous experiments were conducted to analyze the closedloop performance of the proposed controller. The closedloop performance of the controller investigated under the following conditions:

Controller based on both inductor and capacitor current control models (linear load)

Nonlinear load
1) Controllers Based on Inductor and Capacitor current control Models: The closedloop performances of the controllers based on the capacitor and inductor current control models are compared. Each test was conducted using linear loads from noload to fullload conditions for analyzing characteristics of the output voltage.
Fig. 14
shows the output waveforms of the controller based on the inductor current control model under different loads. The controller is optimized to fullload condition, and
Figs. 14(a)

(b)
show the output waveforms corresponding to 0 W and 1500 W loads. As the load power increases, the output voltage approaches 311 V; however, the error of the output voltage also increases.
Experimental results with the inductor current control model: (a) no load; (b) 1.5 kW load
Fig. 15
shows the output waveforms of the controller based on the capacitor current control model under different loads. This controller is also optimized to fullload condition, and
Figs. 15(a)

(b)
show the output waveforms at 0 W, 500 W, 1000 W, and 1500 W loads. As opposed to the inductor current control model, the output voltage is controlled and nearly constant at 311V and the magnitude of voltage error also varies minimally regardless of load.
Experimental results with the capacitor current control model: (a) no load; (b) 1.5 kW load.
Figs. 16
,
17
, and
18
compare the peak output voltage values, output voltage errors, and THDs of the output voltage waveforms, respectively, of the controllers based on the inductor and capacitor current control models. As can be seen in
Fig. 16
, the peak output voltage value of the inductor current control model varies from 0% to 8% whereas that of the capacitor current control model varies slightly from 0.3% to 0.7% regardless of load. The output voltage error of the inductor current control model is approximately twice as that of the capacitor current control model, as shown in
Fig. 17
. Additionally, the THD of the inductor current control model is evaluated to be approximately 2.5% on average, and that the capacitor current control model is evaluated to be approximately 1.5%, as shown in
Fig. 18
. Therefore, the experimental results show that the capacitor current control model is superior to the inductor current control model in all the cases.
Comparison of output voltage peak values.
Comparison of output voltage errors between reference and output voltage.
Comparison of THDs.
2) Nonlinear Loads: The
Fig. 19
shows two types of nonlinear loads and nonlinear thyristor loads. These load configuration is followed by IEC 62403. Former consists of a diode rectifier, R
_{serise}
, R
_{L}
and C, where (R
_{serise}
= 9 Ω, R
_{L}
= 48 Ω /C= 3300 μF) and latter consists of a thyristor rectifier and R
_{L}
where (R
_{L}
= 23.8 Ω).
Figs. 20
and
21
show the output voltage, output current and voltage error without and with the proposed repetitive controller under the nonlinear loads. The analysis of the experimental results is given in
Table 2
. From
Fig. 20
, the output voltage, voltage error, and THD are determined to be 310.6 V, 42 V, and 2% without the repetitive controller and 311 V, 0 V, and 1.37% with the repetitive controller, respectively.
Comparison controller performance
Comparison controller performance
Nonlinear load structure: (a) nonlinear load; (b) nonlinear thyristor load.
Experimental results of a diode rectifier load: (a) without repetitive controller; (b) with repetitive controller.
In
Fig. 21
, the output voltage, voltage error, and THD are 304.5 V, 28.2 V, and 4.07% and 310.6 V, 0.42 V, and 4.76% without and with the repetitive controller, respectively. In the case of
Fig. 21
, the output voltage THD is degraded; however, its level is within a permissible range of grid code. This problem can be overcome by increasing the capacitance in the output filter. The results clearly show that the proposed repetitive controller improves the quality of the output voltage under nonlinear loads.
Experimental results of a thyristor rectifier load: (a) without repetitive controller; (b) with repetitive controller.
6. Conclusion
A highperformance voltage controller based on capacitor current control model is proposed for singlephase standalone inverters in this study. The proposed controller was designed using the repetitive control scheme to handle voltage distortions under nonlinear loads in 1.5kW single phase standalone inverter prototype. The simulation and experimental results verify the effectiveness of the proposed control scheme under nonlinear loads. The output voltage error is decreased by 39.8% in rate power, and the THD is increased by 36.8% under stable linear load condition. The output voltage error is decreased by over 98% in step response. This highperformance voltage controller can be employed in ESS and UPS applications.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOE) (NRF2013R1A1A2013256).
BIO
ByengJoo Byen was born in Seoul, Korea. He received the B.S and M.S in 2011, 2013, respectively, and is current pursuing the Ph.D degree in power electronics at Konkuk University. His research interests are electric vehicle chargers and single phase inverter control method.
JungMuk Choe was born in Seoul, Korea. He received the B.S, M.S and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea in 2008, 2010 and 2014 respectively. From 2010 to 2011, he was a Researcher for LSIS, Korea. He is currently a Postdoctoral Associate at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
GyuHa Choe was born in Pusan, Korea. He received the B.S, M.S and ph.D. degrees from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, in 1978, 1980, and 1986, respectively. Since 1980, he has been with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, where he is currently a Professor and the Director of the Energy Electronics Research Center. Dr. Choe was the President (20072008) of the Korean Institute of Power Electronics. From 2012 to 2013, he was the Vice President of Konkuk University. His research interests are in the fields of harmonic cancellation and active power filtering, pulse widthmodulation control for ac voltage regulators and inverter welding machines, PCS design of Brown’s gas generation, photovoltaic generation, and fuelcell generation, Various technology related to DC distribution and EV charging with smart grids.
Loh P. C.
,
Holmes D. G.
2005
” Analysis of multiloop control strategies for LC/CL/LCLfiltered voltagesource and currentsource inverters”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.
41
644 
654
DOI : 10.1109/TIA.2005.844860
Monfared M.
,
Golestan S.
,
Guerrero J. M.
2014
“Analysis, Design, and Experimental Verification of a Synchronous Reference Frame Voltage Control for SinglePhase Inverters”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
61
259 
269
He J.W.
,
Li Y.W.
2012
“Generalized ClosedLoop Control Schemes with Embedded Virtual Impedances for Voltage Source Converters with LC or LCL Filters”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
27
1850 
1861
DOI : 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168427
Mohamed Y. A. R. I.
2011
“Mitigation of Dynamic, Unbalanced, and Harmonic Voltage Disturbances Using GridConnected Inverters With LCL Filter”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
58
3914 
3924
DOI : 10.1109/TIE.2010.2098372
Lei Q.
,
Peng F. Z.
,
Yang S. T.
2011
“Multiloop Control Method for HighPerformance Microgrid Inverter Through Load Voltage and Current Decoupling With Only Output Voltage Feedback”
IEEE Trans Power Electron
26
953 
960
DOI : 10.1109/TPEL.2010.2096992
Dong D.
,
Thacker T.
,
Burgos R.
,
Wang F.
,
Boroyevich D.
2011
“On Zero SteadyState Error Voltage Control of SinglePhase PWM Inverters With Different Load Types”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
26
3285 
3297
DOI : 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2157361
Buso S.
,
Fasolo S.
,
Mattavelli P.
2001
“Uninterruptible power supply multiloop control employing digital predictive voltage and current regulators”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.
37
1846 
1854
DOI : 10.1109/28.968200
Willmann G.
,
Coutinho D. F.
,
Pereira L. F. A.
,
Libano F. B.
2007
“Multipleloop Hinfinity control  Design for uninterruptible power supplies”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Elctron.
54
1591 
1602
DOI : 10.1109/TIE.2007.894721
AbdelRahim N. M.
,
John E. Q.
1996
“Analysis and Design of a Multiple Feedback Loop Control Strategy for Singlephase VoltageSource UPS Inverters”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
11
532 
541
DOI : 10.1109/63.506118
Loh P. C.
,
Newman M. J.
,
Zmood D. N.
,
Holmes D. G.
2003
; A comparative analysis of multiloop voltage regulation strategies for single and threephase UPS systems”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
18
1176 
1185
DOI : 10.1109/TPEL.2003.816199
Rodriguez J.
,
Pontt J.
,
Silva C.A.
,
Correa P.
,
Lezana P.
,
Cortes P.
,
Ammann U.
2007
“Predictive Current Control of a Voltage Source Inverter”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
54
495 
503
Espi Huerta J.M.
,
CastelloMoreno J.
,
Fischer J.R.
,
GarciaGil R.
2009
” A Synchronous Reference Frame Robust Predictive Current Control for ThreePhase GridConnected Inverters”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Elctron.
57
954 
962
Cho J.S.
,
Lee S.Y.
,
Mok H.S.
,
Choe G.H.
1999
” Modified deadbeat digital controller for UPS with 3phase PWM inverter”
IEEE Ind Appl Conf. 34th IAS Annul. Meeting
4
2208 
2215
Kukrer O.
,
Komurcugil H. d.
1999
” Deadbeat control method for singlephase UPS inverters with compensation of computation delay”
IEE Proc. Electric Power Appl.
146
123 
128
DOI : 10.1049/ipepa:19990215
Zhang K.
,
Kang Y.
,
Xiong J.
,
Chen J.
2003
” Direct repetitive control of SPWM inverter for UPS purpose”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
18
784 
792
DOI : 10.1109/TPEL.2003.810846
Zhou K. L.
,
Low K. S.
,
Wang D. W.
,
Luo F. L.
,
Zhang B.
,
Wang Y. G.
2006
” Zerophase oddharmonic repetitive controller for a singlephase PWM inverter”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
21
193 
201
DOI : 10.1109/TPEL.2005.861190
Escobar G.
,
Mattavelli P.
,
Stankovic A. M.
,
Valdez A. A.
,
LeyvaRamos J.
2007
” An adaptive control for UPS to compensate unbalance and harmonic distortion using a combined capacitor / load current sensing”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
54
839 
847
DOI : 10.1109/TIE.2007.891998
Escobar G.
,
Valdez A.
,
LeyvaRamos J.
,
Mattavelli P.
2007
“Repetitive based controller for a UPS inverter to compensate unbalance and harmonic distortion”
IEEE Trans. Ind. .Electron
54
504 
540
Willmann G.
,
Coutinho D. F.
,
Pereira L. F. A.
,
Libano F. B.
2007
” Multipleloop Hinfinity control  Design for uninterruptible power supplies”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
54
1591 
1602
DOI : 10.1109/TIE.2007.894721
Chen S.
,
Lai Y. M.
,
Tan S. C.
,
Tse C. K.
2008
“Analysis and design of repetitive controller for harmonic elimination in PWM voltage source inverter systems”
IET Power Electron.
1
497 
506
DOI : 10.1049/ietpel:20070006
Zhang B.
,
Wang D.
,
Zhou K.
,
Wang Y.
2008
” Linear phase lead compensation repetitive control of a CVCF PWM inverter”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
55
1595 
1602
DOI : 10.1109/TIE.2008.917105
Zhou K. L.
,
Wang D. W.
,
Zhang B.
,
Wang Y. G.
2009
” PlugIn DualModeStructure Repetitive Controller for CVCF PWM Inverters”
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
56
754 
791
Jiang S.
,
Cao D.
,
Li Y.
,
Liu J. F.
,
Peng F. Z.
2012
” LowTHD, FastTransient, and CostEffective SynchronousFrame Repetitive Controller for ThreePhase UPS Inverters”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
27
2991 
3005
Yaohua L.
,
Xiaoli D.
,
Fanrong M.
,
Jiang Y.
2012
“High Performance Repetitive Controller for Eliminating Periodic Disturbance of Inverter with Unbalance Load”
Power and Energy Eng. Conf. APPEEC, Shanghai, China
1 
4
Cho Y.
,
Lai J. S.
2013
” Digital PlugIn Repetitive Controller for SinglePhase Bridgeless PFC Converters”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
28
165 
175
DOI : 10.1109/TPEL.2012.2196288
Lu W.
,
Zhou K.
,
Wang D.
,
Cheng M.
2013
“A General Parallel Structure Repetitive Control Scheme for Multiphase DCAC PWM Converters”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
28
He L. L.
,
Zhang K. K.
,
Xiong J. J.
,
Fan S. S. H.
2015
“A Repetitive Control Scheme for Harmonic Suppression of Circulating Current in Modular Multilevel Converters,”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
50
471 
481
Wei W.
,
Panda S. K.
,
Xu J. X.
2005
“Control of High Performance DCAC Inverters Using Frequency Domain Based Repetitive Control,”
Int. Conf. Power Electronics and Drives Systems, Kuala Lumpur
442 
447
Rashed M.
,
Klumpner C.
,
Asher G.
2013
“Repetitive and Resonant Control for a SinglePhase GridConnected Hybrid Cascaded Multilevel Converter”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
28
Ouyang H.
,
Zhang K.
,
Zhang P.
,
Kang Y.
,
Xiong J.
2011
“Repetitive Compensation of Fluctuating DC Link Voltage for Railway Traction Drives”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
26
Flores J. V.
,
da Silva J. M. G.
2012
“Repetitive Control Design for MIMO Systems with Saturating Actuators”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
57
Gerardo E
,
Paolo M.
,
Michael H. G.
2014
“Filters with LinearPhase Properties for Repetitive Feedback”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
61
Zhang B.
,
Zhou K.
“Multirate Repetitive Control for PWM DC/AC Converters”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
61
June 2014 
2014
Shahparasti M.
,
Mohamadian M.
2014
“Derivation of a SationaryFrame SingleLoop Controller for ThreePhase Standalone Inverter Supplying Nonlinear Loads”
IEEE Trans Power Electron.
29
Guofeng H.
,
Min C.
2014
“Design and Analysis of Multiloop Controller with DC Suppression Loop for Paralleled UPS Inverter System”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
61
Zhi Jian Z.
,
Xing Z.
,
Po X.
2008
“SinglePhase Uninterruptible Power Supply Based on Zsource Inverter”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
55