Experimental analysis compares three sliding-mode control strategies in a five-level inverter, revealing critical performance differences.
This paper presents a systematic experimental comparison of three sliding-mode-based current control strategies—traditional sliding mode control (SMC), fast terminal sliding mode control (FTSMC), and super-twisting sliding mode control (STSMC)—applied to a grid-connected five-level active neutral point clamped flying capacitor (5L-ANPC-FC) inverter. Unlike existing studies that typically investigate a single controller or topology, this work provides a fair, hardware-validated benchmark under identical operating conditions, enabling a clear assessment of convergence speed, harmonic performance, robustness, and implementation complexity. All controllers are designed within a unified framework and their stability is rigorously analyzed using Lyapunov theory. Experimental evaluations are conducted under steady-state operation, step changes in reference current, grid-voltage sag/swell, and DC-link voltage variations. The results demonstrate that while all three controllers ensure robust current tracking and inherent DC-side capacitor voltage balancing without additional control loops, FTSMC achieves the lowest grid-current total harmonic distortion (THD) and fastest convergence. STSMC effectively suppresses chattering, and traditional SMC offers a simple yet reliable baseline solution. The presented findings provide practical design guidelines for selecting appropriate sliding-mode controllers in high-performance multilevel inverter applications. Among the assessed control techniques, FTSMC has the most rapid dynamic response, characterized by a rise time of 0.1 ms and a minimal grid-current THD of 1.95%, indicating exceptional steady-state and transient performance. STSMC markedly diminishes chattering and ripple, attaining a THD of 2.04% with enhanced waveform smoothness relative to traditional SMC. Conversely, traditional SMC offers a more straightforward implementation but demonstrates elevated ripple and THD levels of around 2.29%, along with a peak current inaccuracy of 6–8%. The results underscore the trade-offs between implementation simplicity, dynamic responsiveness, and harmonic performance of the evaluated control techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ugur Fesli (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: