PV-Based Multilevel Inverter-Fed Three-Phase Induction Motor with Improved Time and Speed of Response

  • Chandrasekaran S
  • Durairaj S
Conference paper


In the present power scenario, the power quality is most significant in the field of grid-connected and load-connected inverter. A number of techniques were proposed in the field of renewable energy for improving the efficiency and quality of the power. In this article, the time response of the controller was analysed and verified for load-connected multilevel inverter. There are different types of controllers in use, such as Proportional (P), Proportional Integral (PI), Proportional Integral Derivative (PID), Integer Order PID (IOPID), etc. Out of those controllers classic PI controller is most efficient in the speed of response, that’s why the classic PI controller is compared with proposed Fractional Order Proportional Integral Derivative controller (FOPID). Based on the results, FOPID has more speed of response. The outputs of the multilevel inverter are to be improved by minimizing the rise time, settling time and steady-state error of the inverter. The Simulink model was built to control the motor speed and it will going to be applied for grid in the future.


PID Fractional-order PID MLI Harmonic Renewable energy Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) 



Direct Current


Fractional-order Proportional Integral Derivatives


Hybrid Pulse Width Modulation


Integer-order Proportional Integral Derivatives


Multilevel Inverter


Metal-oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor


Proportional Integral


Proportional Integral Derivatives




Revolution Per Minute


Random Pulse Width Modulation


Single Pulse Width Modulation


Total Harmonic Distortion


Voltage-controlled Oscillator


  1. 1.
    Smriti Rao K, Mishra R (2014) Comparative study of P, PI and PID controller for speed control of VSI-fed induction motor. Int J Eng Dev Res 2(2):2321–9939Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tepljakov A, Alagoz BB, Yeroglu C, Gonzalez E, Nia SHH, Petlenkov E (2018) FOPID controllers and their industrial applications: a survey of recent results. 3rd IFAC conference on advances in proportional-integral-derivative control, Ghent, Belgium, May 9–11, 2018Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Venkateswara rao R, Ramash Kumar K, Narasimha Raju VSN (2017) Design of PI controller for seven level symmetrical MLI with minimal quantity of switches plus Snubber circuit. Int J Eng Trends Technol 47(8):445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahamed M, Sheir A, Orabi M (2017) Real time solution and implementation of selective harmonic elimination of seven-level multi level inverter. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Power Electron 5(4):1700–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salam MA, Aziz A, Alwaeli AHA, Kazem HA (2013) Optimal sizing of photovoltaic systems using HOMER for Sohar, Oman. Int J Renew Energy Res 3(2)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    George DS, Baiju MR. Random PWM scheme for 3-level inverter using offset time randomization. IECON 2011 – 37th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics societyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kulkarni A, John V (2013) Mitigation of lower order harmonics in a grid connected single phase PV inverter. IEEE Trans Power Electron 28(11):5024–5037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ramanathan T, Ramesh R, Subramaniam CK, Ganesan K. Pseudorandom carrier based subharmonic PWM for cascaded multilevel inverters. IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems (ISCAS)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chandrasekaran S
    • 1
  • Durairaj S
    • 2
  1. 1.Arasu Engineering CollegeKumbakonam, ThanjavurIndia
  2. 2.Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Engineering CollegePerambalurIndia

Personalised recommendations