Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
A Comparative Study of Control Schemes Based on PI Controllers and State-Feedback Control for Grid-Connected Converters Cover

A Comparative Study of Control Schemes Based on PI Controllers and State-Feedback Control for Grid-Connected Converters

Power Electronics and Drives
Volume 11 (2026): Issue 1 (January 2026)
By:   
Open Access
|May 2026
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Block diagram of the plant. PLL, phase-locked loop.

Figure 2.

Block diagram of a cascade control structure with PI controllers.

Figure 3.

Block diagram of the full state feedback control structure.

Figure 4.

Numerical simulation comparison of the considered control systems represented in synchronous frame: a) grid voltage, b) load current, c) grid current, d) dc-link voltage e) and f) zoom on dc-link voltage.

Figure 5.

Simulation results illustrating in the stationary frame the performance differences between the two control strategies: a) grid voltage, b) grid current – PI-controller-based cascade structure, c) grid current – FSF control structure.

Figure 6.

Simulation results illustrating in the stationary frame the performance differences between the two control strategies: a) grid voltage, b) grid current – PI controller based cascade structure, c) grid current – FSF control structure.

Figure 7.

Disk-based stability margins of the control system for a) input perturbation, b) output perturbation, c) simultaneous input and output perturbation.

Figure 8.

Effect of input filter inductance (a) and DC-link capacitance (b) variations on the stability margin.

DM based stability analysis results

Performance metric DMs at plant inputsDMs at plant outputsDM at both inputs and outputs
Cascade PI controlDisk size0.42450.18270.1311
Gain margin[0.6499 1.5388][0.8326 1.2010][0.8770 1.1402]
Phase margin[−23.9640 23.9640][−10.4367 10.4367][−7.4982 7.4982]
FSF controlDisk size0.81960.21750.1822
Gain margin[0.4186 2.3887][0.8038 1.2440][0.8330 1.2004]
Phase margin[−44.5681 44.5681][−12.4128 12.4128][−10.4088 10.4088]

Comparison of the control properties of PI-controller-based and FSF control structures

Performance metricCascade PI controlFSF control
Settling timeFastFast
Voltage sag – disturbance rejectionEffectiveHighly effective
Step load – disturbance rejectionEffective, moderate oscillationsEffective, well-dumped response
Reference step responseHigh DC voltage overshoot, High peak current, oscillatory responseLow DC voltage overshoot, moderate peak current, well-dumped response

Parameters of grid GCC_

Parameter nameSymbolValue
Nominal grid voltage (RMS)Vn400 V
Nominal grid current (RMS)In14 A
Nominal grid frequencyfn50 Hz
Input filter inductanceL2 mH
Input filter resistanceR0.1 Ω
DC-link capacitanceCdc500 μF
Switching/sampling frequencyfsw10 kHz
Nominal DC voltage Udcn U_{{\rm{dc}}}^{\rm{n}} 600 V
Nominal load current Iloadn I_{{\rm{load}}}^{\rm{n}} 16.2 A
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/pead-2026-0014 | Journal eISSN: 2543-4292 | Journal ISSN: 2451-0262
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 216 - 229
Submitted on: Jan 28, 2026
Accepted on: Apr 28, 2026
Published on: May 25, 2026
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
grid-connected converter,
full state feedback,
stability analysis,
voltage-oriented control
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Artificial intelligence,
Engineering,
Electrical engineering,
Electronics

© 2026 Marek Michalczuk, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 11 (2026): Issue 1 (January 2026)
Previous article
Next article