Digital Control for UPS Inverters
Lazhar Ben-Brahim1 , Tomoki Yokoyama2 , Atsuo Kawamura3
1
Department of Industrial Technology, University of Qatar, Doha, Qatar
2
Dept. of Computers and Systems Eng., Tokyo Denki University, Tokyo, Japan
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan
Abstract— PWM inverters digital controls with dead-beat re-
sponse, for UPS applications, are reviewed. To improve the
output waveforms of the PWM inverter, several modern control
techniques are applied together with the deadbeat control.
This paper describes the evolution of PWM inverters deadbeat
control technique, and discusses practical considerations for the
implementation of this digital control.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems are widely
used for providing emergency power to critical loads that
cannot afford utility failure. The core of a UPS is a Constant-
Voltage-Constant-Frequency (CVCF) inverter. High-quality
output voltage is required for these inverters. In the past,
sinewave inverters relied on open-loop feedforward control
to produce the shape of the waveform, while a relatively
slow output voltage rms feedback loop regulated the mag-
nitude. Although these types of controllers could maintain a
desired steady-state rms output voltage, their response to step
changes in load were noticeably slow (several cycles of the
output waveform), and nonlinear loads could greatly distort
their output voltage waveform, [1]-[5]. Today, various modern
feedback control techniques are available to control the output
voltage waveform continuously, rather than on an rms basis.
The development of fast Microprocessors and DSPs, made
possible the use of digital feedback control schemes for power
electronic converters. This computation power has waved the
way to the implementation in real-time of sophisticated digital
algorithms, such as deadbeat control and observer, for PWM
inverters. These so-called instantaneous controllers offer many
performance advantages including faster (sub-cycle) transient
response, better total harmonic distortion (THD), and im-
proved disturbance rejection via lower output impedance.
Digital control strategies of PWM inverters are mostly based
on the deadbeat control theory [11]. The deadbeat technique
is a type of control by which the system exhibits a finite
settling time response. The deadbeat control was applied for
both the CVCF and VVVF PWM inverters to produce nearly
sinusoidal output waveforms [6]-[17]. Various papers were
published on the deadbeat control of PWM inverters, which
can be categorized by the number of phases (single or three),
or according to the applied control strategies. Deadbeat control
technique was first applied to CVCF PWM inverters for
UPS applications single phase case [6]-[11], and subsequently
to three-phase case [12]-[15]. The deadbeat generates the
required PWM pattern to produce nearly sinusoidal waveforms
Fig. 1. UPS based on CVCF PWM inverter
at the inverter output, even with small output filters. In order
to implement the deadbeat control in real time, estimation or
prediction of the feedback signals by an observer is used. As
a result, real time control of PWM inverter output waveforms
with very low THD, are realised with the combination of
deadbeat control and observer technique. A new technique
of deadbeat controlling not only the output voltage of CVCF
PWM inverter but also its variational component, is presented
[20]. This Voltage Variation Compensation (VVC) method
is based on the N-delay control technique [18]. The VVC
control has shown its effectiveness in suppressing the beat
phenomenon even with small filter. The VVC is suitable for
high carrier frequency application.
The deadbeat control was also extended to the regulation
of the current of VVVF PWM inverter for AC drives and
Active Filter applications [21], [22]. However, this is beyond
the scope of this paper.
II. D IGITAL CONTROL OF PWM INVERTER
A. Modeling
Figure 1 shows a single-phase CVCF PWM inverter system
for UPS. This system consists of a dc source, a dc-ac inverter,
a filter (LC) and a load which can be linear (resistive load,
R) or nonlinear (capacitor input rectifier load).
By choosing vi as the input voltage of the system and
the filter output voltage vo and its derivative v̇o as the state
variables, the state equation is derived as follows,
ẋ = Ax + bvi (1)
· ¸ · ¸ · ¸
vo 0 1 0
where, x = , A = ,b = ,
v̇o −ωP2 −2ωP ξP ωP2
1 1
ωp = √LC , ξp = √
2R C/L
 This output feedback, output deadbeat control law requires
only the output voltage as a feedback signal to derive the
deadbeat law in (6), [9]. Unlike the state deadbeat control
where all of the poles are located at the origin, this law locates
only one pole at the origin and as a result it may exhibit
undesirable undamped oscillation. Therefore, the rest of the
Fig. 2. Pulse pattern poles should be inside the unit circle to guarantee the stability
of the deadbeat control in (6).
Another model similar to (1) is also possible by selecting C. Observer
the voltage output and the current through the inductor as state
variables. Equation (2) represents this model, The computed pulse width ∆T (k) in (5) and/or in (6),
which drives the output voltage to a specified sinusoidal ref-
x˙p = Ap xp + bp vi (2) erence, is computed on-line. The voltage pulse in a switching
· ¸ · 1
¸ · ¸
v −2ωP ξP C 0 interval is subsequently applied to the LC filter as soon as its
where, xp = o , Ap = , bp = 1
ii − L1 0 L
computation is done. As a result, the maximum pulse width
To apply digital control techniques such as deadbeat control, is limited by the finite computation time. To eliminate these
the sampled-data model should be developed. To derive this limitations, few approaches are possible: 1) a special pulse
model, the inverter voltage vi is assumed to be a pulse of pattern could be used [7]; 2) allow the newly computed pulse
magnitude +E or -E, and width ∆T as shown in Fig. 2. Thus width to be applied with a delay, while the previously applied
the sampled-data model is derived as follows, pulse is preserved until it is updated by the new pulse [11].
However, The latter method requires the use of load-dependent
x(k + 1) = Φx(k) + gu(k) (3)
· ¸ · ¸ reference. 3) If a high frequency Sampling is used, another
v (k) φ11 φ12
where, x(k) = o ,Φ= = eAT , approach is to predict the state variables of the next sampling
· ¸ v̇ o (k) φ21 φ22 instant by an observer, and to use the whole sampling interval
g
g = 1 = eAT /2 bE, and E is the dc source voltage. vo (k), for the control calculation [14]. The last method is widely
g2 used and is useful especially for high sampling frequency
v̇o (k) and u(k) = ∆T (k) are values at the sampling instant applications.
kT . The state variables at the next sampling instant can be es-
A similar sampled-data model for (2), is derived as follows, timated using the model of (3) or (4). In [14], the state
xp (k + 1) = ψxp (k) + G∆T (k) (4) variables xbp (k + 1) were predicted using the model of (4)
Ap T Ap T /2 in the following full order observer
where ψ = e ,G=e bp E.
B. Deadbeat control Law x
bp (k + 1) = ψb
xp (k) + G∆T (k) + L(yp (k) − H x
bp (k)) (7)
The concept of deadbeat response is unique to discrete-time where, the symbol ” b ” denotes the predicted quantities, and
systems. In deadbeat control, any nonzero error vector will be yp (k) = Cxp (k), C = [0 1] = H , L = [l1 l2 ] is the gain
driven to zero in finite sampling periods. There are different matrix.
types of deadbeat control, depending on the type of feedback The estimation error is obtained by subtracting (7) from (4):
and controlled output: 1) state feedback, output deadbeat, 2)
output feedback, output deadbeat and 3) state feedback, state ep (k + 1) = (ψ − LH)ep (k) (8)
deadbeat. where ep (k) = xp (k) − xbp (k)
By replacing vo (k + 1) with the reference voltage vref (k + 1) The gain L should be selected so that all of the poles in (8)
in the first row of (3), the deadbeat control law becomes, are within a unit circle in the z-domain. Usually new poles
1 position in (8) should be closer to the origin than the poles in
∆T (k) = (vref (k + 1) − φ11 vo (k) − φ12 v˙o (k)) (5)
g1 (4).
This control law forces the output voltage to be equal to the
D. Disturbance Observer
reference at the next sampling instant. In other words, the
pulse width in (5) makes output voltage reach the reference at A separate disturbance observer along side with the state
each sampling instant. The state feedback output deadbeat of observer were used in [17], in order to reduce the effect of
(5) was used in [6],[8]. impact load, and for better robustness to disturbances. The
Another alternative to derive a deadbeat control is obtained by load in Fig. 1 is replaced by a disturbance current source IL
eliminating v̇o (k) from (3), and replacing vo (k + 2) with the and a rated resistive load R. The output current io and output
reference voltage vref (k + 2), and then reducing k by 1, voltage vo are measured and the disturbance current IL is
obtained from (io − vo /R). The disturbance observer is given
1
∆T (k) = (vref (k + 1) − (φ11 + φ12 )vo (k) + (φ11 φ22 by:
g1
−φ21 φ12 )vo (k − 1) − (g2 φ12 − g1 φ22 )∆T (k − 1)) (6) x bd (k) + Ldis (IL (k) − IbL (k))
bd (k + 1) = Fdis x (9)
 · ¸
1 0
bd (k) = [ḃ
where, x I L (k) IbL (k)] , Fdis = . By
T 1
selecting the observer gain Ldis , the poles of the disturbance
observer can be arbitrary chosen. Then using the estimated
disturbance in (9), a state variable observer is derived as
follows,
x
bp (k+1) = Fp x bp (k)+Fd x bd (k)+G∆T (k)+Lp (vo (k)−b vo (k))
(10)
where, Lp is the matrix gain.
The deadbeat control law is finally derived as follows, Fig. 4. UPS system used for VVC control

1
∆T (k) = (vref (k + 1) − ψp x
bp (k) − ψd x
bd (k)) (11)
G1
where, Fp , Fd , G1 , ψp , and ψd are given in [17].
The gain Ldis and Lp are selected such that the disturbance
observer converges faster than the state variable observer. In
other words, the pole positions of the disturbance observers
were placed closer to the origin than the state observer.
As a result, the disturbance cancellation is achieved prior
to the state estimation using a feedforward compensation.
The overall performance of the disturbance observer based
deadbeat control is excellent in terms of fundamental voltage
regulation for the balanced and unbalanced load, and the
transient response for the nonlinear load [17].
E. Repetitive Control
When a non-linear load such as a capacitor input diode
bridge, is connected to the UPS, the peaky current flows once
in a half cycle, and the output voltage becomes distorted. To
compensate for this, the following repetitive control is very
effective [8], [19]. Fig. 3 shows the principal configuration
of repetitive control which is an iterative control type. The
gains c1 and c2 , and the term z 1−n are the main components
of the repetitive controller. Gp (z) is the plant pulse transfer
function, and n = fc /f where f and fc are the reference
and the sampling frequency respectively. The pulse transfer
function F (z)(= E(z)/R(z)) for the controlled system in Fig.
3 is given by,
1 − z −n
F (z) = (12)
1− z −n (1 − (c1 + c2 − c1 z −n )z)Gp (z)
where E(z) is the error function. Similarly, the pulse transfer
function E(z)/D(z) from disturbance to the error is exactly
the same as (12). The frequency transfer function correspond-
ing to (12) is
F0 (jω) = F (z) |z=ejω/fc (13)
The numerator of (13) is given by, 1−e−jω/fc , if the reference
r(t) is a sinusoidal signal with angular frequency ωm = 2πmf
(m = 0, 1, 2, ...n/2), then the numerator becomes
1 − e−jω/fc = 1 − e−j2πm = 0 (14)
Thus, if the system is stable, then
lim | F0 (jω) |= 0 (15)
ω→ωm
Equation (15) means that no steady state error is obtained with
the repetitive control for any periodic disturbance or reference
whose frequency equals or is a multiple of f . Unlike the
deadbeat control, the repetitive control is characterized by its
slow response despite its accuracy even when the plant Gp (z)
is not known. From this point of view the combination of the
deadbeat and repetitive controller yields the best results as they
complement each other [8]. While the deadbeat compensates
for any unexpected impact load changes, the repetitive control
is effective when the same amount of distortion appears
cyclically and generates a compensating signal to offset the
possible distortions.
F. Voltage Variation Compensation
To achieve the real time deadbeat control without computa-
tion delay and without using predictive observer technique,
a new approach based on state feedback state deadbeat is
proposed in this paper [20]. This control is called also Voltage
Variation Compensation (VVC), as it controls along with the
output voltage vo its variation v̇o . To derive the output PWM
pulse width, both rows of (3) are used, and vo (k + 1) and
v̇o (k + 1) are replaced by the references vref (k + 1) and
v̇ref (k + 1) respectively, the pulse widths for the next two
carrier periods become as follows:
∆T1 (k) = {a1 vref (k + 1) + a2 iref (k + 1) + a3 vo (k − 1)
+a4 ic (k − 1) + a5 u1 (k − 1) + a6 u2 (k − 1)}/a7 (16)

∆T2 (k) = {b1 vref (k + 1) + b2 iref (k + 1) + b3 vo (k − 1)

+b4 ic (k − 1) + a5 u1 (k − 1) + a6 u2 (k − 1)}/b7 (17)
where, a1 ∼ a7 and b1 ∼ b7 are computed as a function of
φij and gi parameters [20].
Fig. 5 shows the PWM pulse pattern of instantaneous value
control with VVC scheme. ∆T1 (k) and ∆T2 (k) are the pulse
Fig. 3. Discrete time repetitive control width for the next two-carrier period as shown in Fig.5.
 TABLE I
S ETUP PARAMETERS FOR SINGLE - PHASE UPS

1
Sampling frequency, f 1.8kHz = 555.5µs
Reference voltage (sine wave), f, V 60Hz, 30V peak
dc bus voltage, E 40V
Rated load, R 2Ω
LC filter, 0.53mH, 800µF

Fig. 5. Pulse Pattern of the VVC Approach

∆T1 (k) and ∆T2 (k) are derived using the sampled-data which
are the inverter output voltage at the previous sampling instant
vo (k−1), the capacitor current at the previous sampling instant
ic (k − 1), the pulse widths in the previous sampling interval
(∆T1 (k−1), ∆T2 (k−1)), and the reference signals at the next
sampling instant vref (k + 1) and iref (k + 1). VVC scheme
ensures that the output voltage vo and its derivative v̇o reach
the references vref (k+1) and v̇ref (k+1), at the next sampling
instant based on the multi-rate sampling method[18]. Thus, a
beat phenomena of the output voltage is restrained between
the control period. This VVC also adopts the repetitive control
scheme to compensate for the nonlinear load [8]. As a result,
the sampling period is twice the carrier period, making the
implementation of the control software easier. The reference
voltage vref and v̇ref are calculated in real time. The v̇ref
is derived from vref as the result of time derivative, and the
capacitor current reference iref can be replaced with v̇ref .
III. D IGITAL C ONTROL I MPLEMENTATION
Authors used various types of experimental setup for the
implementation of PWM inverters deadbeat control. An ex-
perimental setup should consist at least of a basic power unit,
application unit (load) and control unit as shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Basic set-up for UPS Control
A. Single-phase Case
In [6],[7], and [8] the deadbeat control of the PWM inverter
was implemented using an Intel 8086 microprocessor. The
parameters of the system used are shown in Table I. Fig. 7
depicts the results obtained in [7] using a sampling frequency
of 1.8kHz. With a rated resistive load, the output voltage
Fig. 7. Output voltage for linear/nonlinear load under deadbeat control [7]
horizontal:2ms/div, vertical:20V/div)
Fig. 8. Output voltage for nonlinear load under deadbeat and repetitive
control
horizontal:2ms/div, vertical:20V/div)
follows the reference voltage with almost no phase shift
and a THD of 1.3% was obtained. Although, with nonlinear
load, a voltage dip was observed, the output waveforms were
noticeably improved compared to the conventional sinusoidal
modulation technique. The voltage drop in Fig. 7 was greatly
reduced in Fig. 8 by using simultaneously the deadbeat and
the repetitive control technique [8]. The repetitive control gains
were set at c1 = 0 and c2 = 0.5 in the experiment. In [9] the
output feedback output deadbeat technique was used using
the law in (6). With the use of a voltage sensor only, similar
performance, as in the state feedback output deadbeat output,
was obtained. However, stability margin is smaller when the
plant parameters vary.
Voltage Variation Compensation
The selection of optimal values of LC filter is well explained
in [20]. Table II shows the filter and the setup parameters used
to carry out the experiment for VVC control technique.
TABLE II
E XPERIMENTAL SETUP PARAMETERS FOR VVC SCHEME
1
Sampling frequency, f 3.6kHz = 278µs
Reference voltage (sine wave), f, V 50Hz, 141V line-to-line
dc bus voltage, E 188V
Repetitive control gain, c2 0.5
LC filter, 360µH, 44.5µF
 (a) Output voltage and current waveforms for rated resistive load
(b) Waveforms of Vo and Vref for rated resistive load
(c) Output voltage and current waveforms for nonlinear load
Fig. 9. Output waveforms for VVC control approach
The curves depicted in Fig. 9(a) show that with resistive
load the output voltage is sinusoidal with a THD of 1.45%
was obtained. Figure 9(b) shows enlargement of the output
voltage Vo and the reference voltage Vref ; clearly the beat
phenomena is well suppressed and vo matches exactly Vref at
each sampling instant. The output current and the load current
for the nonlinear load are also shown (Fig. 9). The THD of
output voltage in this case is as low as 1.6%.
B. Three-phase Case
With the availability of faster and powerful DSPs, the
implementation of deadbeat control for three-phase UPS, in
its rotating reference frame model and its stationary reference
frame model, with higher sampling frequency and with an
observer became possible.
(a) Rotating Reference Frame
In [12],[13] the three phase model was transformed into
rotating dq reference frame, and the deadbeat control was
applied. Since the coupling of dq axis exists, a decoupling
technique was used for the modeling.
(b) Stationary Reference Frame To carry out the
time critical task of deadbeat control, a custom made pulse
pattern generator and data acquisition circuit (see Fig. 10)
was used. Using this hardware configuration setup, several
experimental waveforms were obtained. The description and
analysis of these results are presented in this section. The
control laws, in section II-B, for the single phase system,
can be easily extended to the three-phase system. The three-
phase inverter with LC filter system can be converted into two
Fig. 10. Data acquisition & pulse pattern generation for deadbeat control
¾ ∆Tab (k)-
vab -
kT (k + 1)T
∆Tbc (k)
vbc ¾ -
-
kT (k + 1)T
vca -
kT (k + 1)T
¾- ¾-
∆Tca (k) ∆Tca (k)
2 2
Fig. 11. Pulse pattern for three-phase inverters
decoupled single phase system [14]. Thus, first, measure the
required signals at the sampling instant, then convert them to
two phase signals. Second, compute the required pulse width
∆Tα (k) and ∆Tβ (k) based on single phase control law. Third,
convert these two pulses to three phase pulse width ∆Tab (k),
∆Tbc (k), ∆Tca (k) using the pulse pattern as shown in Fig.
11. This pattern provided the best results through simulation.
In [14] the stationary αβ reference frame were used, and the
state feedback output deadbeat was implemented with 18kHz
sampling frequency with an observer. The experimental setup
parameters are shown in Table III. As depicted in Fig. 12,
very low THD (0.7% with resistive load in Fig. 12(a)) output
waveforms were obtained even with nonlinear load using Fig.
12(b) deadbeat with observer, and Fig. 12(c) deadbeat with
observer and repetitive control.
In [17], the disturbance observer based deadbeat technique
was implemented using almost the same parameters as in Table
III, except that the sampling frequency was 15.6kHz instead
of 18kHz. The effect of impact load was verified when the
load change occurred from no load state to rated resistive load
state. Fig. 13 shows this transient response. The waveform of
the output voltage shows no transient effect and the amplitude
of the output voltage is constant after the full load is applied.
IV. C ONCLUSIONS
Deadbeat controls for UPS PWM inverter were reviewed.
The deadbeat control along with other modern control theory,
such as observer, repetitive control, pole placement, distur-
bance observer, and multirate digital control were applied
 TABLE III
E XPERIMENTAL SETUP PARAMETERS FOR THREE - PHASE UPS
1
Sampling frequency, f 18kHz = 55.5µs
Reference voltage (sine wave), f, V 60Hz, 141V line-to-line
dc bus voltage, E 141V
Rated load, R(∆) 33Ω
LC filter, 120µH, 120µF
Fig. 12. Output waveforms for three-phase UPS under observer and repetitive
control based deadbeat
horizontal:5ms/div, vertical:50V/div, 10A/div)
for UPS PWM inverter. At lower sampling frequency, the
deadbeat control can satisfy the requirement of very fast
transient response with low THD. Repetitive control is also
very effective for CVCF nonlinear cyclic load. When the
sampling frequency is large, observer are used to predict the
feedback signals in order to implement the deadbeat in real
time. A combination of deadbeat control with observer and
repetitive control gives a better result. The multirate digital
design based VVC approach is very effective for suppression
of the beat phenomena of the output voltage with small filter.
The authors believe that the real time digital feedback
control had contributed to better feature of PWM inverters.
These control methods are suitable for control of environment
friendly power electronics converters characterized by higher
efficiency, low harmonics (low THD), high reliability and
improved PF.
R EFERENCES
[1] B.D. Bedford and R.G.Hoft, Principles of Inverter Circuits, John Wiley
& Sons, 1964
[2] H.S.Patel and R.G.Hoft, Generalized Technique of harmonic Elimination
and Voltage Control in Thyristor Inverter Part I, IEEE Trans. I. Appl.
Vol.IA-9, pp.310-317, 1973
Fig. 13. Output waveforms under disturbance observer based deadbeat
control
[3] I.J.Pitel, S.N.Talukdar and P.Wood, Characterization of Programmed
Waveform Pulse Width Modulation, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. Vol.IA-16,
pp707-715, 1980
[4] G.S.Buja, Optimum Output Waveform in PWM Inverters, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl. Vol.IA-16, pp.830-836, 1980
[5] A.Kawamura and R.G.Hoft, Instantaneous feedback Controlled PWM
Invertcr with Adaptive hysteresis, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. Vol.JA-20,
pp769-775, 1984
[6] K.P.Gokhale, A.Kawamura and R.G.Hoft, Deadbcat Microprocessor
Control of PWM Inverter for Sinusoidal Output Waveform Synthesis
IEEE Trans. Vol.IA-23, No.3, pp9Ol-9lO, 1987
[7] A.Kawamura, R.Chuarayapratip and T.Haneyoshi, Deadbeat Control of
PWM Inverter with Modified Pulse Patterns for Uninterruptible Power
Supply, IEEE Trans. on IE, Vol.35, No2, pp.295-300,May 1988
[8] T.Haneyoshi, A.Kawamura and R.G.Hoft, Waveform Comnpensation of
PWM Inverter with Cyclic Fluctuating Loads, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.
Vol.IA-24, No.4, July/Aug. pp.582-589. 1988
[9] A.Kawamura, T.Haneyoshi and R.G.Hoft, Deadbeat Controlled PWM
Inverter with Parameter Estimation Using only Voltage Sensor, Trans.
Vol.PEL-3, No2, pp. 118-125, 1988
[10] C. Hua ”Two-level Switching Pattern Deadbeat DSP Controlled PWM
Inverter”, IEEE Trans. on PEL, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 310-317 May 1995
[11] O. Kukrer ”Deadbeat Control Method for Single-Phase UPS Inverters
with compensation of computation delay”, IEE Proc.-ELectr.Power
Appl., Vol. 146, No. 1, January 1999
[12] T.Kawabata, T.Miyashita and Y.Yamamoto, Deadbeat Control, of Three
Phase PWM lnverter, IEEE Pow. Elec. Spec. Conf. pp.473-481, 1987
[13] T.Kawabata. T.Miyashlta and Y.Yamamoto, Digital Control of Three
Phase PWM Inverter with L-C Filter, IEEE Pow. Elec. Spec. Conf. pp.
634-643, 1988
[14] A.Kawamura and K.Ishihara, Real Time Digital Feedback Control of
Tree Phase PWM Inverter with Quick Transient Response Suitable for
Uninterruptible Power Supply, IEEE LAS Ann. Meet. pp.728-734, 1988
[15] Y.Miguchi ,A.Kawamura,R.G.Hoft, Optimal Pole Assignmnent for
Power Electronics Systems, Powe. Elec. Spec. Conf. pp.74-88, 1985
[16] A. Kawamura, T. Yokoyama, ”Comparison of Five Different Approaches
for Real Time Digital Feedback Control of PWM Inverters”, Proc.
IEEE,PESC’90, pp.1005-1011, 1990.
[17] T. Yokoyama, A. Kawamura, ”Disturbance Observer Based Fully Digital
Controlled PWM Inverter for CVCF Operation”, IEEE Trans. on PE,
Vol.9, No.5, Sept, 1994
[18] H. Fujimoto, A. Kawamura, and M. Tomizuka, ”Generalized Digital
Redesign Method for Linear Feedback System Based on N-Delay
Control”, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mecha., Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.101-109, 1999
[19] K. Zhou and D. Wang, ”Digital Repetitive Learning Controller for
Three-Phase CVCF PWM Inverter ” IEEE Transactions On Industrial
Electronics, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 820-830 August 2001
[20] Y. Igarashi, T. Izumi, T. Yokoyama, T. Haneyoshi, ”A Study of Instanta-
neous Control with Voltage Variation Compensation for UPS Inverters”,
PCC-Osaka, Osaka, Japan 2002.
[21] L. Ben-Brahim and A. Kawamura, ”Digital Control of Induction Motor
Current Using Predictive State Observer”, IEEE Transactions on power
electronics Vol. 7, No.3, pp. 551-559 July 1992.
[22] S. Hamasaki, A. Kawamura, ”Improvement of Current Regulation of
Line Current Detection type Active Filter based on Deadbeat Control”
IAS Annual meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 202-207, October 2001.