IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO.
8, AUGUST 2010
Model Predictive Control of Multilevel Cascaded
H-Bridge Inverters
Patricio Cortés, Member, IEEE, Alan Wilson, Samir Kouro, Member, IEEE, Jose Rodriguez, Senior Member, IEEE,
and Haitham Abu-Rub, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents a model predictive current con-
trol algorithm that is suitable for multilevel converters and its
application to a three-phase cascaded H-bridge inverter. This
control method uses a discrete-time model of the system to predict
the future value of the current for all voltage vectors, and selects
the vector which minimizes a cost function. Due to the large
number of voltage vectors available in a multilevel inverter, a large
number of calculations are needed, making difficult the implemen-
tation of this control in a standard control platform. A modified
control strategy that considerably reduces the amount of calcu-
lations without affecting the system’s performance is proposed.
Experimental results for five- and nine-level inverters validate the
proposed control algorithm.
Index Terms—Cascaded H-bridge (CHB), current control, in-
verters, model predictive control (MPC), multilevel inverters, pre-
dictive control.
I. I NTRODUCTION
M ULTILEVEL converter technology is a very efficient
alternative for medium-voltage and high-power appli-
cations and also for other applications where high-quality
voltages and currents are required [1], [2]. These converters
have several advantages over the traditional converters: oper-
ation with voltages over the switching device rating, reduced
common-mode voltages, and smaller voltage changes (dv/dt).
The application of multilevel converters covers a wide range
that includes the following: high-power drives [3], active filters
[4], and other industrial applications like conveyor systems,
fans, pumps, traction, and ship propulsion.
There are three well-established topologies of multilevel
inverters: neutral point clamped (NPC), flying capacitor, and
cascaded H-bridge (CHB) [5]. This paper deals with the CHB
inverter, which consists of single-phase H-bridge inverters in
series connection with independent dc links of equal voltage, to
provide the total output voltage to the load [6]. The classical
Manuscript received March 16, 2009; revised August 24, 2009 and
November 24, 2009; accepted November 26, 2009. Date of publication
February 8, 2010; date of current version July 14, 2010. This work was
supported in part by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria and in part
by the Chilean National Fund of Scientific and Technological Development
(FONDECYT) under Grant 1080443.
P. Cortés, A. Wilson, and J. Rodriguez are with the Electronics Engineering
Department, Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, Valparaíso 2390123,
Chile (e-mail: patricio.cortes@usm; jrp@usm.cl).
S. Kouro is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada (e-mail:
samir.kouro@ieee.org).
H. Abu-Rub is with Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha 23874, Qatar
(e-mail: haitham.abu-rub@qatar.tamu.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2010.2041733
0278-0046/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
2691
strategies for control and modulation of CHB inverters use
linear control and phase-shifted pulsewidth modulation [7] or
space vector modulation [8], [9] modulation in order to generate
the switching signals for controlling the converter. Other mod-
ulation methods for low switching frequency have also been
proposed [10]–[12].
In recent years, new control strategies have been studied for
the current control of power inverters. Among them, model pre-
dictive control (MPC) has been applied for the control of power
converters due to its several advantages, like fast dynamic
response, easy inclusion of nonlinearities and constraints of the
system, and the flexibility to include other system requirements
in the controller [13]–[15]. MPC considers a model of the
system in order to predict the future behavior of the system
over a horizon in time. A cost function represents the desired
behavior of the system. MPC is an optimization problem where
a sequence of future actuations is obtained by minimizing the
cost function. The first element of the sequence is applied, and
all the calculation is repeated every sample period.
Due to the fast sampling times used in the control of
power converters, solving the optimization problem of MPC
online is not practical. One approach is to use an explicit
solution of MPC, solving the optimization problem offline. The
resulting controller is a search tree or a lookup table and can be
implemented without big computational effort. This solution
has been used for the control of a dc–dc converter [16] and a
drive system [17].
Considering that power converters are systems with a finite
number of states, given by the possible combinations of the
state of the switching devices, the MPC optimization problem
can be simplified and reduced to the prediction of the behavior
of the system for each possible state. Then, each prediction is
evaluated using the cost function, and the state that minimizes
it is selected [18]. This is a different approach that has been
successfully applied for the current control in a three-phase
inverter [13], [19] and a matrix converter [20], [21], power
control in an active front-end rectifier [22], and torque and flux
control of an induction machine [23]–[26].
In multilevel converters, MPC has been applied for a three-
level NPC inverter [27], a flying capacitor converter [28],
and an asymmetric 27-level CHB inverter [29] using all the
switching states of the system. An MPC approach for selective
harmonic elimination is proposed in [30]. However, in a sym-
metric CHB, large number of switching states and redundancies
are available. Hence, it is difficult to implement the control
algorithm using standard signal processors, particularly when
high switching frequency is required.
2692 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 8, AUGUST 2010

TABLE I
TOTAL VOLTAGE VECTORS AND DIFFERENT VOLTAGE VECTORSFORA
THREE-PHASE CHB INVERTER WITH C CELLS

where Sia,1 and Sia,2 are the binary switching signals of the
cell i and leg a. The possible switching combination KS for a
CHB inverter with C cells in each leg is

KS = 26C . (4)

As an example, in a CHB inverter with two cells in each leg,

Fig. 1. CHB inverter. (a) Two-cell CHB three-phase inverter with RL load.
(b) Topology of one cell.
In this paper, an optimized method of model predictive
current control is proposed in order to reduce the amount of
calculations needed for the selection of the optimal voltage
vectors, by choosing a subset of the available voltage vectors for
the control algorithm. Although the proposed control method is
valid for any number of levels, a five-level inverter has been
chosen as an illustrative example for modeling and explanation
of the proposed algorithm. Simulation and experimental results
for five- and nine-level CHB inverters are presented.
there are a total of 4096 possible switching states, which is a
very large number of states for using them all to find the optimal
solution. As each phase can generate five voltage levels, a total
of 125 voltage vectors are possible in a three-phase inverter.
From these 125 voltage vectors, several are redundant, resulting
in 61 different voltage vectors. The total number of voltage
vectors and different voltage vectors for different numbers of
cells per phase is listed in Table I.
According to Fig. 1, the differential equation of the current of
one leg (a) for a three-phase RL load connected to the inverter
is
dia
L + Ria = va0 (5)
dt
where va0 is the voltage across the load in reference to its
neutral point. However, the voltage across the load in terms of
the inverter voltage is

II. S YMMETRIC CHB I NVERTER AND L OAD M ODEL va0 = vaN + vN 0 (6)
The multilevel three-phase inverter considered in this paper
is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of a three-phase CHB inverter where vN 0 is the common-mode voltage (vcm ), defined as
with two cells in each phase. Each cell is fed by a three-phase
vaN + vbN + vcN
diode bridge rectifier with a dc-link voltage VDC , as shown in vN 0 = vcm = . (7)
Fig. 1(b). Each cell can generate an output voltage −VDC , 0, 3
and VDC . For each phase, the number of possible voltage levels The load model can be expressed also as a vector equation
is using the following vectorial transformation:
⎡ ⎤
L = 2C + 1 (1)     a
α 2/3 √ −1/3 −1/3 √ ⎣b⎦
= (8)
where L is the number of levels and C is the number of series- β 0 3/3 − 3/3
c
connected cells in one leg. In a three-phase inverter, the number
of voltage level combinations KL is
where a, b, and c are the three-phase variables of voltage or
KL = L . 3
(2) current, and α and β are the vectorial variables. Using this
transformation, (5) can be described in terms of the vectorial
On the other hand, each cell has two switching signals, and variables α−β as
for C cells in each leg, the voltage of a leg of the inverter in
diα,β
terms of binary switching signals is L + Riα,β = vα,β (9)
dt

C
VaN = VDC (Sia,1 − Sia,2 ) (3) where vα,β is the inverter voltage vector and iα,β is the load
i=0 current vector.
CORTÉS et al.: MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF MULTILEVEL CASCADED H-BRIDGE INVERTERS 2693

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the predictive control algorithm.

III. P REDICTIVE C ONTROL A LGORITHM

A. Discrete Model and Prediction
The main idea of the predictive current control scheme used
in this paper is to predict the behavior of the load current for
each possible voltage vector generated by the inverter. The
prediction of the current is based on the discretized model of Fig. 3. Voltage vectors for a two-cell CHB three-phase inverter. Adjacent
voltage vectors referred to vαβ [k].
the system.
Approximating the derivative di/dt in (9) by the high amount of calculations required to apply the MPC in a
diα,β iα,β [k + 1] − iα,β [k] multilevel inverter.
≈ (10)
dt Ts
IV. P REDICTIVE C ONTROL W ITH R EDUCED
and substituting it in (9), the following expression is obtained
N UMBER OF C ALCULATIONS
for the future load current vector:

As can be seen in the previous section, for a CHB inverter,

Ts L
i[k + 1]α,β = vα,β [k]−iα,β [k] R − . (11)
L Ts
This equation will be used in the controller to predict the
future value of the load current for a given voltage vector.
B. Voltage Vector Selection
For the selection of the appropriate voltage vectors for
current control, the current prediction is evaluated using the
following cost function:
 
g[k + 1] = |i∗α [k + 1] − iα [k + 1]| + i∗β [k + 1] − iβ [k + 1]
(12)
where i∗α,β [k + 1] is the reference current vector prediction.
For sufficiently small sampling times, it can be assumed that
i∗α,β [k + 1] ≈ i∗α,β [k]. For larger sample times, extrapolation of
the reference is needed.
The cost function (12) is evaluated for each possible voltage
vector, and the one that minimizes it, is selected and applied to
the load. This means that (11) and (12) are calculated 125 times
for a 5-level inverter in order to obtain the optimal solution.
A block diagram of the predictive current control is shown in
Fig. 2. Here, the measured currents are used for the prediction
of the n future values of the load currents, corresponding to
the n possible voltage vectors, where n = 125 for a five-level
inverter. These predictions are evaluated by the cost function,
and the voltage vector which minimizes this function is selected
and applied.
Several different formulations of the cost function are pos-
sible. Depending on the specific application, it is possible to
include reduction of the switching frequency, spectrum shaping,
and others [18]. However, a very simple cost function will be
considered in this paper, focusing in the problem of reducing
the number of voltage vectors to be evaluated in order to obtain
the optimal solution is very high, making difficult to implement
this control algorithm in a standard control platform. In this
paper, it is proposed to reduce the set of voltage vectors to be
evaluated. First, the redundant voltage vectors are eliminated by
choosing the ones that generate the minimum common-mode
voltage. Then, a subset of possible voltage vectors is selected,
considering the information about the previously applied volt-
age vector.
A. Elimination of Redundant Voltage Vectors
As presented in Section I, the five-level inverter generates
125 voltage vectors, but with the vectorial transformation
shown in (9), there are some redundant vectors generated with
different voltage levels. With C cells in each leg of the CHB
inverter, the amount of nonredundant voltage vectors is
V = 12C 2 + 6C + 1. (13)
In Fig. 3, the voltage vectors and the number of equivalent
voltage levels for a five-level CHB inverter, with 61 differ-
ent voltage vectors, are shown. For the current control, only
one voltage level state for each vector is necessary. The selec-
tion criterion is to select the voltage level states that minimize
the common voltage vector, as defined in (7).
This elimination of redundant vector does not affect the
behavior of the current control, because the possible voltage
vectors that can be applied to the load do not change. However,
with this modification, the inverter voltage waveforms are im-
proved, and the common-mode voltage is considerably reduced.
Note that voltage vectors in the outer hexagon have no
redundancies and some of them generate high common-mode
voltage. If required, these high common-mode voltage values
2694 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 8, AUGUST 2010

can be easily avoided by not including those voltage vectors in

the subset to be evaluated, or by including the common-mode
voltage in the cost function in order to minimize it, as presented
in [31] for a matrix converter.

B. Subset of Adjacent Vectors

Although, eliminating the redundant vectors, the number of
calculations is reduced, it is still very high, and it depends on
the number of voltage levels of the converter. With sinusoidal
current references, the voltage vector applied to the load is
a rotating vector in steady state. Because of that, it can be
assumed that the voltage vector applied during a sampling
interval is very similar to the one applied during the previous
interval. In this way, it is possible to reduce the set of voltage
vectors to be evaluated to the voltage vectors that are nearest to
the last applied vector, as shown in Fig. 3.
For the calculation of the vectors adjacent to the last applied
vector, the distance between vectors can be calculated with the
following function:

d(vx , vy ) = (vx,α − vy,α )2 + (vx,β − vy,β )2 . (14)

If vx is near to vy , the distance should be equal or less than

2VDC /3. The calculation of distance is made offline (not in
real time), and it is stored in a database for all possible voltage
vectors for using in the predictive control algorithm. For each
one of the different voltage vectors, a list of seven adjacent
vectors is defined. Then, the predictive algorithm will evaluate
only the voltage vectors from this list.
In this way, the number of calculations is reduced to only Fig. 4. Flow diagram of the predictive control algorithm with reduced number
seven predictions, irrespective of the number of cells. This is of calculations.
the same amount of calculation as needed for the predictive
control of a two-level inverter presented in [13]. With this
technique, the predictive control algorithm can be implemented
for multilevel converters using a standard control platform.
The predictive control algorithm is detailed as a flow diagram
in Fig. 4, where nv is the number of adjacent vectors of vn [k].
In this case, one and only one switching state is needed for the
generation of the corresponding voltage level state.
This modification introduces the advantage of smaller dv/dt,
due to the transitions between adjacent vectors.
A plot of the cost function for all voltage vectors is shown
in Fig. 5. The minimum value of this function depends on the
reference and load current vectors. It can be observed that this
function is a convex function. Evaluating a subset of adjacent
vectors will select a vector that, if not the optimal, is in the right
direction and, in successive steps, will converge to the optimal
Fig. 5. Cost function g evaluated for all voltage vectors.
voltage vector that minimizes the load current error.
Other criteria for the selection of a subset of vectors to be
evaluated are possible, such as limiting the voltage variation
V. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION : S IMULATION R ESULTS
of each phase, limiting the switching transitions, and others.
However, the use of adjacent vectors and the elimination of Simulations of a CHB inverter were carried out using
redundancies, presented in this paper, have shown to be a Matlab/Simulink. The load used for simulation and experimen-
very simple and effective solution to reduce the number of tal results is an RL load (47 [Ω] and 15 [mH]) with a 0.98 power
calculations, and present a very good performance, as will be factor, VDC = 45 [V] is considered for each cell, and a sampling
shown in the next sections. time Ts = 200 [μs]. A two-cell five-level inverter and a four-cell
CORTÉS et al.: MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF MULTILEVEL CASCADED H-BRIDGE INVERTERS
Fig. 6. Load current in one phase for a step in the reference amplitude.
(a) Load current and reference. (b) Detail of the reference step, showing the
load current when all voltage vectors are considered (il all), and the adjacent
vectors (il adjacent).
Fig. 7. Inverter voltages for a step in the amplitude of the reference current.
(a) MPC considering all vectors. (b) MPC considering adjacent vectors.
nine-level inverter have been considered to test the proposed
predictive control algorithm.
The behavior of the predictive current control for a step in
the amplitude of the reference current is shown in Fig. 6. It is
shown in Fig. 6(a) that both methods, considering all vectors
and the proposed method with a reduced set of vectors, have
very good reference tracking.
It can be observed in the detailed view of the step change
instant, shown in Fig. 6(b), that reference tracking of the
method using only the seven adjacent vectors is slightly slower
than the algorithm with all the 125 vectors. This difference is
because the proposed method does not allow for big changes
in the output voltage, as can be seen in Fig. 7. When all
vectors are considered, extreme voltage changes are possible.
In contrast, when only adjacent voltage vectors are considered,
voltage changes are limited to one level during each sampling
time. This tradeoff between a slight reduction of the dynamic
performance and the improvement in power quality is not a
negative characteristic. On the contrary, for high-power motor
drives, the reduction of the values of dv/dt greatly improves
the motor life, while the small reduction in dynamic response is
barely noticeable due to the inertias of the load.
2695
Fig. 8. Inverter voltages for a step change in the amplitude of the reference
current when all 125 voltage vectors are evaluated. (a) Inverter phase to neutral
voltage. (b) Load voltage. (c) Common-mode voltage.
Fig. 9. Inverter voltages for a step in the amplitude of the reference current
when only adjacent vectors are evaluated. (a) Inverter phase to neutral voltage.
(b) Load voltage. (c) Common-mode voltage.
Inverter voltages for the same reference step are shown
in Fig. 8 for the predictive current control considering all
125 voltage vectors. It can be observed that if the common-
mode voltage is not considered in the selection of the optimal
voltage vector, the waveform of the inverter voltage is not
symmetrical and the common-mode voltage is high. In contrast,
when redundancies have been eliminated by selecting only the
voltage vectors with lower common-mode voltages and using
the subset of adjacent vectors, the inverter voltage waveform
is symmetrical, and the common-mode voltage is considerably
reduced, as shown in Fig. 9.
The same control algorithm can be easily extended to a
converter with any number of levels. In Fig. 10, the steady-
state operation of five- and nine-level inverters is shown. In both
2696 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 8, AUGUST 2010
Fig. 10. Inverter phase to neutral voltage and load current in steady state.
(a) Five-level inverter. (b) Nine-level inverter.
Fig. 11. Effect of model parameter errors. Load current in one phase for a step
in the reference amplitude using adjacent vectors. (a) No error. (b) −50% error
in the value of L. (c) +50% error in the value of L.
cases, the proposed MPC algorithm considering the subset of
near vectors has been used.
As the proposed control method is based on a model of
the load, the effect of errors in the parameter values of the
model has been studied. Due to the nonlinear nature of the
controller, it is not possible to perform a simple analytical
verification of robustness. The behavior of the system with
different errors in the value of the inductance has been evaluated
using simulations. Results are shown in Fig. 11, where the value
of the inductance used in the predictive model has been varied
from −50% to 50% while the load inductance value has been
kept constant. It can be observed that, even with large errors,
the load current is controlled while a change in the ripple is
observed when the inductance value is overestimated.
The switching frequency in this kind of predictive controllers
is variable. However, it is limited to a maximum of half the
sampling frequency. In this case, as the sampling frequency is
fs = 5 kHz, the switching frequency is limited to 2.5 kHz. The
average switching frequency has been measured for different
operating conditions, resulting between 425 and 500 Hz for
Fig. 12. Load current in one phase for a step in the reference amplitude using
adjacent vectors. (a) Simulation. (b) Experimental.
Fig. 13. Experimental results: Inverter voltage and load current in steady state.
(a) For a five-level inverter. (b) For a nine-level inverter.
each insulated-gate bipolar transistor. If a lower switching
frequency is required, it is possible to reduce it by including
a cost to the change of the switching state, as presented in [27].
VI. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
The control algorithm was implemented in a dSpace platform
and a 10-kW CHB inverter with an RL load. The inverter can
be configured as a five-level inverter with two cells in each
phase and as a nine-level inverter with four cells in each phase.
Experimental results with the same parameter values as those in
the simulation in Section V were performed to validate theory
and simulation. Due to the high amount of calculations required
by the predictive algorithm using all possible vectors, only the
algorithm using the subset of adjacent vectors is implemented
for the desired sampling frequency.
The load current in one phase for a step change in the
amplitude of the reference current is shown in Fig. 12. Here,
experimental results are compared with simulation results, ob-
taining very similar performance.
Operation in steady state is shown in Fig. 13 for both five-
and nine-level inverters. Inverter voltages are sinusoidal in both
CORTÉS et al.: MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF MULTILEVEL CASCADED H-BRIDGE INVERTERS
Fig. 14. Experimental results: Inverter voltage and load current for a step in
the amplitude of the reference current. (a) For a five-level inverter. (b) For a
nine-level inverter.
Fig. 15. Experimental results: (Black) Common-mode voltage and (gray)
inverter voltage for a step in the amplitude of the reference current. (a) For
a five-level inverter. (b) For a nine-level inverter.
cases, and switching frequency is very low for the nine-level
inverter. Load currents present very low distortion.
Results for a step change in the amplitude of the reference
current are shown in Fig. 14. Load current amplitude follows
this change with fast dynamics and without overshoot. It can be
observed in Fig. 15 that the common-mode voltage is kept very
low, even during transients.
The spectrum of the load voltage for a five-level inverter is
shown in Fig. 16. This plot shows that the spectral content of
the load voltage is spread over a wide range of frequencies.
However, the magnitude of each component is low, as can
be seen in Fig. 16(b), and the magnitude of the lower order
harmonics is very low, as shown in Fig. 16(a). As explained
in the previous section, the switching frequency is variable but
limited to a maximum of 2.5 kHz. It can be seen in the figure
that the spectral content is concentrated below this maximum
frequency.
2697
Fig. 16. Experimental results: Load voltage spectrum for a five-level inverter.
VII. C ONCLUSION
An MPC algorithm for CHB multilevel three-phase inverters
has been presented. The proposed strategy considers a subset
of all possible voltage vectors in order to reduce the number
of calculations and make it suitable for implementation in a
standard control platform. This method can be applied to any
multilevel inverter with a high number of levels and switching
states.
The proposed predictive control presents very good reference
tracking and reduced common-mode voltages, with a fast cal-
culation algorithm. By considering the adjacent vectors, only
seven predictions have to be calculated, irrespective of the num-
ber of levels of the inverter. The proposed algorithm requires
the same amount of calculations as the control of a two-level
inverter. The selection among the adjacent vectors strongly
reduces the dv/dt at the load side, while only slightly affecting
the dynamic performance. This is an affordable tradeoff when
considering its application in high-power motor drives, where
CHB inverters are used.
The current control of the CHB inverter has been presented in
this paper. However, the proposed control method can be easily
extended to include additional requirements. The proposed
control method can also be applied to other multilevel converter
topologies.
Future work on this topic considers modifications to the con-
trol presented in this paper, including balancing of the power
sharing among all cells, reduction of the switching frequency,
and reduction of common-mode voltage dv/dt. The proposed
controller structure is very flexible and open to include other
requirements and constraints, depending on the specific appli-
cation and the converter topology.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Rodriguez, J.-S. Lai, and F. Z. Peng, “Multilevel inverters: A survey
of topologies, controls, and applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 724–738, Aug. 2002.
[2] J. Rodriguez, L. G. Franquelo, S. Kouro, J. I. Leon, R. C. Portillo,
M. A. M. Prats, and M. A. Perez, “Multilevel converters: An enabling
technology for high-power applications,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 97, no. 11,
pp. 1786–1817, Nov. 2009.
[3] L. Tolbert, F. Z. Peng, and T. Habetler, “Multilevel converters for large
electric drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 36–44,
Jan./Feb. 1999.
2698 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 57, NO. 8, AUGUST 2010
[4] H. Rudnick, J. Dixon, and L. Moran, “Delivering clean and pure power,”
IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 32–40, Sep./Oct. 2003.
[5] J. Rodriguez, S. Bernet, B. Wu, J. O. Pontt, and S. Kouro, “Multi-
level voltage-source-converter topologies for industrial medium-voltage
drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2930–2945,
Dec. 2007.
[6] M. Marchesoni, M. Mazzucchelli, and S. Tenconi, “A non conventional
power converter for plasma stabilization,” in Proc. 19th IEEE Power
Electron. Spec. Conf., Apr. 1988, vol. 1, pp. 122–129.
[7] B. P. McGrath and D. G. Holmes, “Multicarrier PWM strategies for
multilevel inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 858–
867, Aug. 2002.
[8] N. Celanovic and D. Boroyevich, “A fast space-vector modulation al-
gorithm for multilevel three-phase converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 637–641, Mar./Apr. 2001.
[9] J. I. Leon, S. Vazquez, A. J. Watson, L. G. Franquelo, P. W. Wheeler, and
J. M. Carrasco, “Feed-forward space vector modulation for single-phase
multilevel cascaded converters with any dc voltage ratio,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 315–325, Feb. 2009.
[10] J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, P. Correa, P. Cortes, and C. Silva, “A new modu-
lation method to reduce common-mode voltages in multilevel inverters,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 834–839, Aug. 2004.
[11] Y. Liu, H. Hong, and A. Huang, “Real-time calculation of switching
angles minimizing THD for multilevel inverters with step modulation,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 285–293, Feb. 2009.
[12] Z. Du, L. M. Tolbert, J. N. Chiasson, and B. Ozpineci, “Reduced
switching-frequency active harmonic elimination for multilevel con-
verters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1761–1770,
Apr. 2008.
[13] J. Rodriguez, J. Pontt, C. A. Silva, P. Correa, P. Lezana, P. Cortes, and
U. Ammann, “Predictive current control of a voltage source inverter,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 495–503, Feb. 2007.
[14] P. Cortes, J. Rodriguez, D. E. Quevedo, and C. Silva, “Predictive current
control strategy with imposed load current spectrum,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 612–618, Mar. 2008.
[15] P. Cortes, M. P. Kazmierkowski, R. M. Kennel, D. E. Quevedo, and
J. Rodriguez, “Predictive control in power electronics and drives,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4312–4324, Dec. 2008.
[16] A. G. Beccuti, S. Mariethoz, S. Cliquennois, S. Wang, and M. Morari,
“Explicit model predictive control of dc–dc switched-mode power sup-
plies with extended Kalman filtering,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56,
no. 6, pp. 1864–1874, Jun. 2009.
[17] M. Cychowski, K. Szabat, and T. Orlowska-Kowalska, “Constrained
model predictive control of the drive system with mechanical elasticity,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1963–1973, Jun. 2009.
[18] S. Kouro, P. Cortes, R. Vargas, U. Ammann, and J. Rodriguez, “Model
predictive control—A simple and powerful method to control power
converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1826–1838,
Jun. 2009.
[19] J. Rodrıguez, J. Pontt, C. Silva, M. Salgado, S. Rees, U. Ammann,
P. Lezana, R. Huerta, and P. Cortés, “Predictive control of a three-phase
inverter,” Electron. Lett., vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 561–562, Apr. 29, 2004.
[20] S. Muller, U. Ammann, and S. Rees, “New modulation strategy for a
matrix converter with a very small mains filter,” in Proc. IEEE Power
Electron Spec. Conf., Acapulco, Mexico, 2003, [CD-ROM].
[21] S. Muller, U. Ammann, and S. Rees, “New time-discrete modulation
scheme for matrix converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 52, no. 6,
pp. 1607–1615, Dec. 2005.
[22] P. Cortes, J. Rodriguez, P. Antoniewicz, and M. Kazmierkowski, “Direct
power control of an AFE using predictive control,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 2516–2523, Sep. 2008.
[23] J. Rodrıguez, J. Pontt, C. Silva, P. Cortés, S. Rees, and U. Ammann,
“Predictive direct torque control of an induction machine,” in Proc. EPE-
PEMC, Riga, Latvia, Sep. 2–4, 2004.
[24] H. Miranda, P. Cortes, J. I. Yuz, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive torque
control of induction machines based on state-space models,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1916–1924, Jun. 2009.
[25] T. Geyer, G. Papafotiou, and M. Morari, “Model predictive direct torque
control—Part I: Concept, algorithm, and analysis,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec-
tron., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1894–1905, Jun. 2009.
[26] G. Papafotiou, J. Kley, K. G. Papadopoulos, P. Bohren, and M. Morari,
“Model predictive direct torque control—Part II: Implementation and
experimental evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 6,
pp. 1906–1915, Jun. 2009.
[27] R. Vargas, P. Cortes, U. Ammann, J. Rodriguez, and J. Pontt, “Predictive
control of a three-phase neutral-point-clamped inverter,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 2697–2705, Oct. 2007.
[28] P. Lezana, R. Aguilera, and D. E. Quevedo, “Model predictive control
of an asymmetric flying capacitor converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1839–1846, Jun. 2009.
[29] M. A. Perez, P. Cortes, and J. Rodriguez, “Predictive control algorithm
technique for multilevel asymmetric cascaded H-bridge inverters,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4354–4361, Dec. 2008.
[30] S. Kouro, B. La Rocca, P. Cortes, S. Alepuz, B. Wu, and J. Rodriguez,
“Predictive control based selective harmonic elimination with low switch-
ing frequency for multilevel converters,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Conv.
Congr. Expo., Sep. 2009, pp. 3130–3136.
[31] R. Vargas, U. Ammann, J. Rodriguez, and J. Pontt, “Predictive strategy to
control common-mode voltage in loads fed by matrix converters,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 4372–4380, Dec. 2008.
Patricio Cortés (S’05–M’08) received the Engi-
neer and M.Sc. degrees in electronic engineering
from the Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María
(UTFSM), Valparaíso, Chile, in 2004 and the Ph.D.
degree from UTFSM in 2008.
In 2003, he joined the Electronics Engineering De-
partment, UTFSM, where he is currently a Research
Associate. His main research interests are power
electronics, adjustable-speed drives, and predictive
control.
Dr. Cortés received the Best Paper Award from the
IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRIAL E LECTRONICS in 2007.
Alan Wilson was born in Villa Alemana, Chile, in
1984. He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in elec-
tronics engineering from the Universidad Técnica
Federico Santa María (UTFSM), Valparaíso, Chile,
in 2010.
He is currently a Research Assistant with the De-
partment of Electronics Engineering, UTFSM. His
research interests include multilevel voltage source
inverters, predictive control of power converters, and
development of control systems for power converters
based on field-programmable gate array and DSPs.
Samir Kouro (S’04–M’08) was born in Valdivia,
Chile, in 1978. He received the M.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees in electronics engineering from the Uni-
versidad Técnica Federico Santa María (UTFSM),
Valparaíso, Chile, in 2004 and 2008, respectively.
He joined the Electronics Engineering Depart-
ment, UTFSM, as Research Assistant in 2004 and
became an Associate Researcher in 2008. Since
2009, he has been a Postdoctoral Fellow with
Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada. His
main research interests include power converters,
adjustable-speed drives, and renewable energy power conversion systems.
Dr. Kouro was distinguished as the youngest researcher of the Chilean
National Fund of Scientific and Technological Development (FONDECYT) in
2004. He also received the Best Paper Award from IEEE Industrial Electronics
Magazine in 2008.
CORTÉS et al.: MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF MULTILEVEL CASCADED H-BRIDGE INVERTERS 2699

Jose Rodriguez (M’81–SM’94) received the Engi- Haitham Abu-Rub (M’99–SM’07) received the
neer degree in electrical engineering from the Uni- M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Gdynia
versidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Marine Academy, Gdansk, Poland, in 1990 and the
Chile, in 1977 and the Dr. Ing. degree in electrical Ph.D. degree from the Gdansk University of Tech-
engineering from the University of Erlangen, Erlan- nology, Gdansk, in 1995.
gen, Germany, in 1985. He has held a position as an Assistant Professor
Since 1977, he has been with the Department and an Associate Professor at Birzeit University,
of Electronics Engineering, University Técnica Fed- Birzeit, Palestine, for eight years. For four years, he
erico Santa María, where he is currently a Professor. had been appointed as the Chairman of Electrical
From 2001 to 2004, he was the Director of the Engineering Department at the same university. He
Department of Electronics Engineering of the same is currently an Associate Professor with Texas A&M
university. From 2004 to 2005, he was the Vice Rector of Academic Affairs, University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar. His main research interests are the electrical
and since 2005, he has also been the Rector of the same university. During machine drives and power electronics.
his sabbatical leave in 1996, he was responsible for the Mining Division of Dr. Abu-Rub has earned many international prestigious awards, such as
Siemens Corporation, Santiago, Chile. He has extensive consulting experience the American Fulbright Scholarship (at Texas A&M University), the German
in the mining industry, particularly in the application of large drives such Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship (at Wuppertal University, Wuppertal,
as cycloconverter-fed synchronous motors for semiautogenous grinding mills, Germany), the German DAAD Scholarship (at Bochum University,
high-power conveyors, and controlled ac drives for shovels and power-quality Bochum, Germany), the British Royal Society Scholarship (at Southampton
issues. He has directed more than 40 R&D projects in the field of industrial University, Southampton, U.K.), etc.
electronics. He has coauthored more than 250 journal and conference papers
and contributed one book chapter. His research group has been recognized
as one of the two centers of excellence in engineering in Chile from 2005 to
2008. His main research interests include multilevel inverters, new converter
topologies, control of power converters, and adjustable-speed drives.
Dr. Rodriguez has been an active Associate Editor of the IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS and the IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON I NDUSTRIAL E LECTRONICS since 2002. He has served as a Guest Editor
for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS in six instances
[e.g., Special Sections on Matrix Converters (in 2002), Multilevel Inverters (in
2002), Modern Rectifiers (in 2005), High Power Drives (in 2007), Predictive
Control of Power Converters and Drives (in 2008), and Multilevel Inverters (in
2009)]. He received the Best Paper Award from the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS in 2007.