# Open-Circuit Fault Detection Strategy in Grid-Tied NPC Inverters Using Distorted Current and Model Predictive Control

Hadjira Mechri, Aissa Kheldoun, Mohamed Tamim Touati, Soufiane Khettab, Abdelkarim Ammar, Youcef Belkhier, Nima Khosravi, Adel Oubelaid

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Hadjira Mechri, Aissa Kheldoun, Mohamed Tamim Touati, Soufiane Khettab, Abdelkarim Ammar, et al.. Open-Circuit Fault Detection Strategy in Grid-Tied NPC Inverters Using Distorted Current and Model Predictive Control. International Journal of Energy Research, 2025, 2025 (1), pp.6678119. 10.1155/er/6678119. hal-05351390

HAL Id: hal-05351390

https://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-05351390v1

Submitted on 6 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Research Article

# Open-Circuit Fault Detection Strategy in Grid-Tied NPC
Inverters Using Distorted Current and Model Predictive Control

Hadjira Mechri,<fnref n="1" /> Aissa Kheldoun ID,<fnref n="1" /> Mohamed Tamim Touati,<fnref n="2" /> Soufiane Khettab,<fnref n="3" /> Abdelkarim Ammar,<fnref n="1" /> Youcef Belkhier ID,<fnref n="4" /> Nima Khosravi ID,<fnref n="5" />,<fnref n="6" /> and Adel Oubelaid ID,<fnref n="7" />

Correspondence should be addressed to Nima Khosravi; nimakhosravi64@gmail.com

Received 6 September 2024; Accepted 24 January 2025

Academic Editor: Amir Afzal

Copyright © 2025 Hadjira Mechri et al. International Journal of Energy Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Investigating and addressing fault detection is crucial for advancing the reliability, performance, and cost-effectiveness of grid-connected inverter systems, thereby contributing to the stability and efficiency of modern power grids. This study introduces a novel approach for detecting and classifying open-circuit faults (OCFs) in three-level neutral point clamped (3-L-NPC) inverters connected to the grid. The proposed algorithm swiftly identifies faulty switches and clamping diodes using distorted current signals and model predictive control (MPC), eliminating the need for additional hardware or complex computations. By addressing the challenge of identifying the specific switch under grid-connected conditions, the proposed method achieves faster detection and identification of all switches and clamping diodes in less than one fundamental period which is very good compared with recent studies and considering that no extra sensors are used. Furthermore, this work demonstrates the efficacy of MPC in tolerating OCFs in clamping diodes, showcasing its potential to enhance system resilience and performance. The proposed strategy significantly improves the reliability of 3-L-NPC inverters by ensuring prompt and accurate fault detection and classification. Both experimental and simulation results confirm the efficacy of the suggested fault detection and identification approach, emphasizing its practical applicability in real-world grid-tied inverter systems.

**Keywords:** fault diagnosis; model predictive control (MPC); neutral point clamped (NPC) inverter; open-circuit fault

## 1. Introduction

In recent years, the integration of grid-tied neutral point clamped (NPC) inverters into renewable energy systems has gained significant attention due to their efficiency and reliability [1–3]. These inverters are crucial for converting direct current (DC) from renewable sources like solar panels into alternating current (AC) suitable for the electrical grid [4, 5]. However, the operation of NPC inverters can be compromised

by faults, which can affect both their performance and the stability of the power grid. Consequently, robust fault detection strategies are essential to ensure the continuous and safe operation of these inverters. Traditional fault detection methods for NPC inverters often rely on standard diagnostic techniques, which may not be sufficient in the face of complex fault scenarios [6–8]. As grid-connected systems become more sophisticated, there is an increasing need for advanced strategies that

<footnote n="1">¹Laboratory of Signals and Systems, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University M'hamed Bougara, Boumerdes, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Algerian Space Agency (ASAL), Algiers, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³SET Laboratory, Faculty of Technology, Electronics Department, Universite Saad Dahlab Blida 1, Blida, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴University of Brest, UMR CNRS 6027 IRDL, Brest 29238, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Department of Electrical and Instrumentation Engineering, R&D Management of NPC, Tehran, Iran</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Centre of Research Impact and Outcome, Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Rajpura 140401, Punjab, India</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Université de Bejaia, Faculté de Technologie, Laboratoire de Technologie Industrielle et de l'Information, Bejaia 06000, Algeria</footnote>
can address various types of faults with higher accuracy [9]. Recent advancements have highlighted the potential of using distorted current signals as a diagnostic tool. Distorted currents, resulting from operational anomalies or faults, can provide critical insights into the condition of the inverter, thus enabling more precise fault detection.

Incorporating model predictive control (MPC) into the fault detection strategy offers a promising approach to enhance the reliability of NPC inverters. MPC is known for its capability to predict future system behavior and adjust control actions accordingly [10–12]. By integrating MPC with distorted current data, it is possible to develop a dynamic and adaptive fault detection system that not only identifies faults but also anticipates their progression. This combination enables a proactive approach to fault management, minimizing downtime, and improving the overall efficiency of the inverter system. The proposed strategy focuses on leveraging the strengths of both distorted current signals and MPC to create a comprehensive fault detection framework. By combining these elements, the strategy aims to achieve higher fault detection accuracy and reliability. This approach is expected to contribute significantly to the advancement of fault management in grid-tied NPC inverters, ultimately enhancing the stability and efficiency of renewable energy systems. Through ongoing research and development, this strategy could set a new standard for fault detection and management in modern inverter technologies [13–17].

Wei et al. [18] introduced a parallel OCF (open-circuit fault) diagnosis method (POFDM) for cascaded full-bridge NPC inverters (CFNPCIs) using MPC. It detects faults by monitoring abnormal capacitor voltage changes across eight IGBTs in each submodule. The method counts changes and identifies faulty switches based on these counts. The POFDM handles single and multiple faults, with validation via experimental prototypes. Xu et al. [19] presented a reduced-order observer-based approach for diagnosing open-switch and current sensor faults in grid-tied NPC inverters. It transforms sensor faults into a generalized state vector and decouples faults using matrix transformations. A reduced-order observer estimates phase currents and faults accurately, and an adaptive threshold diagnosis algorithm identifies fault types and locations. Experimental results confirm the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed diagnosis strategy. Smith et al. [20] addressed the challenges posed by unbalanced voltages in distribution networks due to increased renewable energy sources and large loads. It proposes a control algorithm for 3-L (three-level) inverters to manage ripples in control signals and enhance fault ride-through capability. The algorithm allows for balanced current output or ripple-suppressed active power output, improving voltage balance with enhanced neutral point current prediction, validated through simulations, and experiments.

The work in [21] explores a control scheme for single-phase grid-connected inverters using finite control set-MPC (FCS-MPC). The scheme controls active and reactive power from distributed energy resources, including photovoltaics and battery storage, with low-voltage ride-through capability during voltage sag. It employs three orthogonal signal generation methods to create virtual components for power computation, demonstrating quick response, and effective grid support through

simulation. Long et al. [22] examined fault-tolerance control (FTC) methods for T-type 3-L converters, focusing on MPC applications. It introduces sequential MPC and predictive tolerance control methods that balance neutral point voltage and track grid current. These methods enhance control flexibility by reducing calculation loops and improving fault management. Performance is validated through simulations and experiments, showing benefits in balancing NP voltage and reducing harmonic distortion. Chen and He [23] proposed an OCF diagnosis method for 3-L-NPC rectifiers using a fault injection strategy. It improves traditional phase-to-phase voltage residual calculations by quantifying residuals based on current levels. Faults are detected using normalized residuals derived from existing sensors. A fault injection strategy helps distinguish between inner and outer switch faults and avoid misdiagnoses, with experiments confirming the method's accuracy and robustness.

Further, Li et al. [24] introduced an adaptive FCS-MPC method for three-phase inverters connected to distorted grids with fewer voltage sensors. It uses a composite observer consisting of a phase detection module and time-varying observers to identify grid voltages and their harmonics. The simplified FCS-MPC scheme in the natural coordinate system enhances current tracking performance, and simulations and experiments demonstrate its effectiveness under distorted grid conditions. Li et al. [25] addressed parameter inaccuracies in model-based control by employing a time-varying parameter observer for real-time system parameter identification. A new controller, based on these accurate parameters, enhances the adaptability of FCS-MPC. Simulations and tests on a Packed-U-Cells grid-connected inverter system show the adaptive method's reliability, maintaining operation even under fault conditions, demonstrating its robustness and effectiveness. In the following, Chen and He [26] proposed a method for diagnosing OCFs in 3-L-NPC rectifiers by comparing actual and reference voltages without complex calculations or additional hardware. It integrates FTC to improve fault location accuracy and differentiate between outer- and inner-switch faults. The method avoids amplifying fault consequences and extends to multiple-switch faults, validated through experiments to confirm its efficiency and resource-saving benefits.

Work in [27] discusses the application of MPC in current-source converters (CSCs) to manage filter resonance and parameter mismatches. A dual-disturbance observer estimates capacitor voltage references and input disturbances to improve grid-current tracking. The MPC scheme, evaluated by increasing the prediction horizon, shows that grid-current feedback alone can effectively control CSCs, simplifying design and reducing parameter mismatch effects. Experimental results confirm the scheme's effectiveness and practical benefits. Liab et al. [28] presented a control scheme for large-scale grid-connected PV systems featuring two conversion stages: DC/DC converters for PV arrays and a 5-L-NPC inverter. It introduces FS-MPC for maximizing power from each PV array and controlling the NPC inverter. The scheme ensures rapid maximum power point tracking, DC-link voltage balance, and high grid-current quality. Results from simulations and experiments demonstrate superior performance compared to conventional methods. Research work in [29] explores intelligent
predictive multiobjective control (IPMOC) for enhancing power quality and reliability in grid-tied multilevel converters. It combines MPC with artificial neural networks for dynamic adjustment of weighting factors and power references. The IPMOC reduces harmonics, and switching transitions, and suppresses common-mode voltage. Tested on a three-phase NPC converter using dSPACE 1202 and MATLAB, the IPMOC proved effective in real-time power management and harmonic mitigation. Manikandan and Singh [30] proposed a rapid fault identification method for MLIs using estimated phase voltages and an average cost function. The technique simplifies fault diagnostics and is robust against false alarms, providing efficient fault switch localization in an NPC-based induction motor drive system. Implemented in MATLAB/Simulink, the method was validated in real-time with a 3.7 kW motor drive, showing fault diagnostics within 4.2–15.2 ms.

Lim, Goh, and Lee [31] introduced a near-optimal FCS model-predictive grid-current control for VSIs with actively damped LCL filters. It benefits from a constant-frequency PWM, avoids common simplifications by considering third-order effects, and operates effectively near critical frequencies. By utilizing the entire hexagonal vector space, it maximizes dc-bus usage. Simulations and experiments confirm its viability for grid-current control with PWM-VSIs. Research work in [32] is presented as a unified OCF diagnosis method for all semiconductor devices in 3-L-NPC converters. It calculates residuals from mismatches between actual and estimated current paths, detecting faults in IGBTs, clamping, and freewheeling diodes using only existing current measurements. The method locates faults within milliseconds and is integrated into the model's predictive current control. Experimental and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) tests validate its effectiveness and robustness across different scenarios. Further, Ramirez et al. [33] addressed the challenge of high computation time in MPC for modular multilevel converters (MMCs). It proposes a fast method to quickly identify the optimal voltage vector among many options, significantly reducing computation time. The method simplifies MPC implementation in microcontrollers by discarding duration times and modulating the reference vector using SVM. It ensures fast dynamic response, low current THD, and compatibility with existing MMC control algorithms. Finally, Makhamreh et al. [34] proposed a Lyapunov-based MPC for a PUC7 grid-connected inverter. This controller simplifies design by eliminating gain coefficients and reducing switching frequency, which lowers switching losses. It is based on a cost function derived from the Lyapunov control theory. Simulations and experiments on a PUC7 prototype show high disturbance rejection, robustness to parameter mismatches, and a quick dynamic response, making it suitable for grid-tied applications. A comparison of the methods discussed in the literature review, as presented in Section 1, is shown in Table 1.

This research studies the performance of the grid-tied 3-L-NPC inverter under open-switch and clamping-diode faults. In response, a model-predictive-based OCF detection algorithm utilizing distorted current is proposed. The introduced detection method demonstrates the capability to identify faulty switches and clamping diodes instantly or within a few

milliseconds, significantly less than one fundamental period, without requiring additional hardware or complex computations. Furthermore, the MPC technique employed in the grid-connected 3-L-NPC inverter shows the ability to tolerate output current faults in clamping diodes. Simulation results confirm the viability and reliability of the proposed fault detection algorithm and the application of MPC in managing faults in clamping diodes. Additionally, HIL experiments substantiate these results for the faulty group. The contributions and innovations of the paper are summarized as follows:

* Introduces a new approach for detecting and classifying OCFs in 3-L-NPC inverters using distorted current signals and MPC, enabling rapid fault identification without additional hardware.

* Achieves detection and identification of faulty switches and clamping diodes in less than one fundamental period, significantly faster than existing methods, thus enhancing the reliability and performance of grid-tied inverters.

* Demonstrates the effectiveness of MPC in tolerating OCFs in clamping diodes, showing its potential to improve system resilience and manage faults without complex computations.

* Both simulation results and HIL experiments confirm the efficacy and reliability of the proposed fault detection method, highlighting its practical applicability in grid-connected inverter systems.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the control strategy is presented. Section 3 introduces the behavior of the case study under OCF scenarios. In Section 4, the fault detection and localization methods are proposed. Simulation and performance verification under parameter drift and unbalanced grid conditions are presented in Section 5. Experimental results are discussed in Section 6. Finally, the conclusion is given in Section 7.

## 2. MPC Strategy for the Grid-Tied 3-L-NPC Inverter

The three-phase grid-connected NPC inverter configuration is presented in Figure 1. Three-phase bridge arms, with four sets of switching elements in each phase, constitute the NPC inverter. Three switching states are defined for each phase when clamping diodes are included: +1, 0, and −1 [36, 37]. Each bridge arm of the three-phase inverter has three switching states defined as follows:

$$s_x = \begin{cases} +1 (P), & s_{x1} \text{ and } s_{x2} \text{ are turned on} \\ 0 (O), & s_{x2} \text{ and } s_{x3} \text{ are turned on, } x = \{a, b, c\}. \\ -1 (N), & s_{x3} \text{ and } s_{x4} \text{ are turned on} \end{cases} \quad (1)$$

The level defined by “P” for positive, “N” for negative, and “O” for neutral represent the output voltages of one arm bridge $V_{dc}/2$, $-V_{dc}/2$, and 0, respectively. The NPC inverter can
<table><caption>TABLE 1: Comparison of various MPC and fault diagnosis approaches across different inverter and converter systems.</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference</th><th>Technical aspects</th><th>Control structure</th><th>Type of system</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>[17]</td><td>Voltage source inverter, LCL filters</td><td>MPC</td><td>Inverter</td><td>Near-optimal control, simplified cost function, good for distorted grids</td><td>Requires multiple sensors, computationally intensive</td></tr><tr><td>[18]</td><td>Parameter inaccuracies, real-time identification</td><td>Adaptive control</td><td>PUC inverter</td><td>Enhances adaptability, ensures continuous operation under faults</td><td>Complex parameter estimation, may not cover all faults</td></tr><tr><td>[19]</td><td>OCF detection</td><td>Fault-tolerant control</td><td>3-L-NPC rectifiers</td><td>Simple, fast fault location, minimal impact on performance</td><td>Limited to specific faults, may not handle all scenarios</td></tr><tr><td>[20]</td><td>Multivariable feedback, resonance suppression</td><td>MPC with dual-disturbance observer</td><td>CSC</td><td>Improved tracking under mismatches, simplifies design</td><td>High computation time, complex feedback management</td></tr><tr><td>[21]</td><td>Two-stage conversion, FS-MPC for PV</td><td>FS-MPC</td><td>Grid-connected PV system</td><td>Enhances power harvesting, balances DC-link voltages</td><td>Requires multiple controllers, complex design</td></tr><tr><td>[35]</td><td>Intelligent predictive control, harmonic mitigation</td><td>IPMOC with neural networks</td><td>Multilevel converters</td><td>Enhances efficiency, reduces harmonics, adaptive</td><td>Requires extensive training, may be complex to implement</td></tr><tr><td>[23]</td><td>Fault identification, phase voltage estimation</td><td>Residual-based method</td><td>Multi-level inverter</td><td>Fast fault detection, robust against false alarms</td><td>Limited to specific faults, relies on existing current measurements</td></tr><tr><td>[24]</td><td>Adaptive FCS-MPC, simplified cost function</td><td>Adaptive FCS-MPC</td><td>Voltage source inverters with LCL filters</td><td>Reduces sensor requirements, effective under distorted grids</td><td>Limited to specific grid conditions, complex observer design</td></tr><tr><td>[25]</td><td>Real-time parameter identification</td><td>Adaptive MPC</td><td>PUC inverter</td><td>Enhances control adaptability, fault tolerance</td><td>Complexity in parameter estimation, may not cover all system variations</td></tr><tr><td>[26]</td><td>OCF diagnosis, FTC</td><td>Fault-tolerant diagnosis</td><td>NPC rectifiers</td><td>Quick fault location, minimal fault impact</td><td>Limited to specific faults, requires accurate reference voltage</td></tr><tr><td>[27]</td><td>Second-order resonance, grid-current tracking</td><td>MPC with dual-disturbance observer</td><td>CSC</td><td>Simplified design, effective tracking under mismatches</td><td>High computation time, complex feedback management</td></tr><tr><td>[28]</td><td>Multistage PV conversion, FS-MPC</td><td>FS-MPC for PV and inverter</td><td>Grid-connected PV system</td><td>Optimizes power extraction, ensures voltage balance</td><td>Complex controller design, multiple stages</td></tr><tr><td>[29]</td><td>Intelligent MPC, real-time harmonic mitigation</td><td>IPMOC with neural networks</td><td>Multilevel converters</td><td>Improves power quality, adaptive control</td><td>Requires neural network training, complex implementation</td></tr><tr><td>[30]</td><td>Rapid fault identification, phase voltage estimation</td><td>Fault identification method</td><td>NPC-based induction motor drive</td><td>Quick and accurate fault diagnostics, resource-efficient</td><td>Limited to specific faults, requires accurate phase voltage estimates</td></tr><tr><td>[31]</td><td>NOP-MPGCC, LCL filter design</td><td>Near-optimal FCS-MPC</td><td>Voltage source inverters</td><td>Simplified control, efficient under critical frequencies</td><td>Requires detailed theoretical derivation, may be complex</td></tr><tr><td>[32]</td><td>Unified fault diagnosis for all semiconductors</td><td>Residual-based method</td><td>3-L-NPC converters</td><td>Fast fault detection, integrates with MPC</td><td>Limited to open-circuit faults, depends on existing measurements</td></tr><tr><td>[33]</td><td>Fast MPC for large vector sets</td><td>Fast MPC</td><td>MMC</td><td>Reduces computation time, compatible with MMC</td><td>May not handle all scenarios, complex vector modulation</td></tr><tr><td>[34]</td><td>Lyapunov-based MPC, reduced switching frequency</td><td>Lyapunov-based MPC</td><td>PUC7 inverter</td><td>Simplifies design, reduces switching losses</td><td>May not be suitable for all inverter types, complex implementation</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: CSC, current-source converter; MPC, model predictive control; NPC, neutral point clamped.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1: 3-L-NPC inverter topology.</figcaption></figure>

generate a total of 27 different voltage vectors depending on various switching combinations. However, due to some redundant switch combinations, the inverter produces 19 unique voltage vectors [38]. The model of the presented inverter is given by the following equation:

$$v = Ri_L + L\frac{di_L}{dt} + v_g, \quad (2)$$

where $v \in U = \{V_{dc}/2, 0, -V_{dc}/2\}$. L is the filter inductance and R is the resistance. $i_L$ is the current of the grid, v is the output voltage of inverter, and $v_g$ is the grid voltage.

**2.1. Finite Set MPC.** The equation of the output current of the inverter is presented as follows:

$$\frac{di_L}{dt} = \frac{1}{L}(v - v_g - Ri_L). \quad (3)$$

Using Forward Euler's approach at sampling time $T_s$, the expression in Equation (3) can be reformulated into a discrete predictive formula:

$$i_L(k + 1) = \left(1 - \frac{RT_s}{L}\right) i_L(k) + \frac{T_s}{L}(v(k) - v_g). \quad (4)$$

To simplify the prediction calculations and the control of the three-phase inverter [39], Clarks' transformation is used to convert the three-phase coordinates a, b, c into two phase coordinates $\alpha, \beta$ as follows:

$$\begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix} = \frac{2}{3} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} & -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} a \\ b \\ c \end{bmatrix}. \quad (5)$$

Transforming the current equation results in the following $\alpha, \beta$ current predictive model:

$$\begin{bmatrix} i_{\alpha}(k+1) \\ i_{\beta}(k+1) \end{bmatrix} = (AT_s + 1) \begin{bmatrix} i_{\alpha}(k) \\ i_{\beta}(k) \end{bmatrix} + \frac{T_s}{L} (V_{\alpha,\beta}(k) - V_{g,\beta}(k)), \quad (6)$$
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2: Space vector representation of the three-phase 3-L-NPC Inverter.</figcaption></figure>

where A is given by:

$$A = \begin{bmatrix} -\frac{R}{L} & 0 \\ 0 & -\frac{R}{L} \end{bmatrix}.$$

According to Choi et al. [40], there are several possibilities for $V_{\alpha,\beta}(k)$ when calculating the predictions of $i_{\alpha,\beta}$ for different three-phase voltage levels. As seen in Figure 2, where the three-phase output voltage changes by just a single level at each phase during every sampling period, the 27 voltage vectors have 19 fundamental space vectors. Consequently, one of the adjoining states of the current step voltage set is the next step optimal voltage state.

Seven calculations of $V_{\alpha,\beta}(k+1)$ are performed for each sample according to the output voltage characteristics in three-phases as follows:

$$V_{\alpha,\beta,1}(k+1) = B[v_a(k) \quad v_b(k) \quad v_c(k)]^T, \quad (7)$$

$$V_{\alpha,\beta,2}(k+1) = B[v_a(k) + 1 \quad v_b(k) \quad v_c(k)]^T, \quad (8)$$

$$V_{\alpha,\beta,3}(k+1) = B[v_a(k) - 1 \quad v_b(k) \quad v_c(k)]^T, \quad (9)$$

$$V_{\alpha,\beta,4}(k+1) = B[v_a(k) \quad v_b(k) + 1 \quad v_c(k)]^T, \quad (10)$$

$$V_{\alpha,\beta,5}(k+1) = B[v_a(k) \quad v_b(k) - 1 \quad v_c(k)]^T, \quad (11)$$

$$V_{\alpha,\beta,6}(k+1) = B[v_a(k) \quad v_b(k) \quad v_c(k) + 1]^T, \quad (12)$$

$$V_{\alpha,\beta,7}(k+1) = B[v_a(k) \quad v_b(k) \quad v_c(k) - 1]^T, \quad (13)$$

where

$$B = \begin{bmatrix} \frac{2}{3} & -\frac{1}{3} & -\frac{1}{3} \\ 0 & \frac{\sqrt{3}}{3} & -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3} \end{bmatrix}.$$

The phase voltage is limited to ensure that both the highest and lowest phase voltage amplitude of 200 V is not exceeded. $V_{\alpha,\beta}$ voltages are calculated, then used in Equation (6) to get the predicted $i_{\alpha,m}(k+1)$, $i_{\beta,m}(k+1)$ for $m=1, ..., 7$, after that, each $i_{\alpha,\beta}$ current will be used to calculate the resulted cost function g as follows:

$$g_m = |i_{\alpha}^*(k+1) - i_{\alpha,m}^*(k+1)| + |i_{\beta}^*(k+1) - i_{\beta,m}^*(k+1)| + \lambda |v_{c1}^p - v_{c2}^p|, \quad (14)$$
for $m = 1, ..., 7$.

where $i_{\alpha}^*(k+1)$ and $i_{\beta}^*(k+1)$ are the current reference values, $i_{\alpha}^p(k+1)$ and $i_{\beta}^p(k+1)$ are the current predicted values.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3: Finite set MPC topology for 3-L-NPC inverter. MPC, model predictive control.</figcaption></figure>

$\lambda$ is the weighting factor, $\nu_{c1}^p$, $\nu_{c2}^p$ are the predicted capacitor voltages. In this inverter, the capacity of capacitors $C_1$ and $C_2$ which are used in DC link are considered equal. The optimal voltage level $v_{i, opt}$ is the voltage that drives the load current to its reference value. It determines the switching states to be selected and it is defined subject to the minimum cost function as follows:

$$v_{i, opt} = \arg \min_{i, \mu(k+1)} g_m, \text{ for } m = 1, \dots, 7, \quad (15)$$

where $i=a, b, c$.

Figure 3 represents the block diagram of the control system for the NPC inverter. The control strategy involves gathering grid voltage values ($v_{gα}$, $v_{gb}$, $v_{gc}$) and output current values ($i_α$, $i_β$, $i_γ$) at moment $k$ before initiating control. Employing $\alpha\beta$ coordinate transformation results in $i_α$ and $i_β$. Subsequently, MPC is trained using these transformed values. Once the model attains a predefined level of precision in approximating the inverter system, it predicts all anticipated values of $i_α^p(k+1)$, $i_β^p(k+1)$ which correspond to various voltage vectors at moment $k+1$. Based on the difference between the reference value of $i_α^*(k+1)$, $i_β^*(k+1)$ and the predicted values of $i_α^p(k+1)$, $i_β^p(k+1)$, the optimization controller selects the set of voltage vectors that minimize the evaluation function as the optimal voltage vector. For the next inverter sampling period, the switching state that corresponds to the optimal voltage vector is applied.

<table><caption>TABLE 2: System parameters.</caption><thead><tr><td>Parameters</td><td>Value</td><td>Unit</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DC-link voltage ($V_{dc}$)</td><td>400</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>Capacitor ($C_1, C_2$)</td><td>300</td><td>µF</td></tr><tr><td>Filter inductance ($L$)</td><td>5</td><td>mH</td></tr><tr><td>Filter resistance ($R$)</td><td>5</td><td>Ω</td></tr><tr><td>Grid voltage ($v_g$)</td><td>120</td><td>V<sub>rms</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Sampling frequency</td><td>60</td><td>kHz</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3. Grid-Tied NPC Inverter Under OC Fault Condition

In this section, a comprehensive analysis of the grid-tied NPC inverter is undertaken considering the open-switch faults in phase a. A MATLAB/Simulink model of the inverter shown in Figure 1 is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the suggested technique. Relevant system parameters are summarized in Table 2. Two types of faults are considered, type-A fault in which switches are set to be open circuit and type B fault which considers one of the clamping diodes to be faulty.

### 3.1. Type-A Fault

3.1.1. OCF in Sa1. An illustration of normal current flow is presented in Figure 4a. Positive current flows via Sa1 and Sa2 in normal working conditions with switching state P. When an OCF occurs in Sa1, state O is still possible while state P becomes
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4: Current paths under the normal condition (a) switching state (P), $i_a > 0$, (b) switching state (O), $i_a > 0$, (c) switching state (O), $i_a < 0$, and (d) switching state (N), $i_a < 0$.</figcaption></figure>

impossible. If a positive current is present, the fault is directed through *Da1* and *Sa2* until the current decreases to zero. Subsequently, *Da1* becomes reverse-biased because of the positive grid voltage, resulting in a complete cessation of positive current flow in the affected phase. This condition is illustrated in Figure 5a.

3.1.2. **OCF in Sa2.** Under normal operating conditions, a positive current flow through *Da1* and *Sa2* when the inverter is in switching state *O*, as illustrated in Figure 4b. However, an open circuit in *Sa2* prevents the system from operating in either switching state *P* or *O*. Consequently, current can only flow through *Dsa3* and *Dsa4*. If this fault occurs while positive current is present, it is redirected through *Dsa3* and *Dsa4* until it dissipates. Subsequently, the positive grid voltage causes *Dsa3* and *Dsa4* to become reverse-biased, ceasing current flow in the affected phase, as illustrated in Figure 5b. The resulting output waveform distortions are identical to those observed during a *Sa1* fault.

3.1.3. **OCF in Sa3.** The study here is quite similar to the preceding case, with the exception of current direction. In state *O*, the current typically flows via *Sa3* and *Da2* in a negative direction. However, as Figure 4d shows, it passes via *Sa3* and *Sa4* in state *N*. An open circuit in *Sa3* during negative current flow will redirect the current through *Dsa1* and *Dsa2* until it dissipates, as illustrated in Figure 4c. Due to the negative grid voltage, *Dsa1* and *Dsa2* function as a barrier once it reaches zero. Negative current stops because both switching states *O* and *N* become impossible, as shown in Figure 5c.

3.1.4. **OCF in Sa4.** An open circuit in *Sa4* prevents the inverter from operating in state *N*, while it can operate in state *O*. The current is directed through *Dsa1* and *Dsa2* until it dissipates when *Sa4* becomes faulty during negative current. However, even after reaching zero, the circuit is not completed. This is due to the fact that the negative grid voltage has reverse-biased *Da2*, *Dsa1*, and *Dsa2*. As a result, the negative phase current in the faulted phase stops, as shown in Figure 5d. Under these circumstances, the output distortions match the outputs that are seen when the *Sa3* fault is present.

## 3.2. Type-B Fault

3.2.1. **OCF in Da1.** When there's an OCF in *Da1*, state *P* is on, while state *O* is not. In normal conditions, the positive current flows through *Da1* and *Sa2* for the *O* switching state. In Figure 4b, when there is a fault in *Da1*, the output is connected to the negative DC-link via *Dsa3* and *Dsa4*. This is because there is a positive current that the *P* state is producing. As a result, the output pole voltage becomes $-V_{dc}/2$, causing a distortion in the positive phase current, as shown in Figure 6a. In this case, the current distortion is significantly lower than what is seen when switches malfunction. However, it is important to note that, considering the use of MPC in circuit regulation, the fault can be tolerated to some extent.

3.2.2. **OCF in Da2.** In the case of a *Da2* fault, the current passes through *Dsa1* and *Dsa2* for the *O* state, carrying a negative current, as illustrated in Figure 4c. As a result, $V_{dc}/2$ is the output pole voltage. As seen in Figure 6b, this led to a minor distortion of the negative phase current.

3.3. **OCF Effect on the DC-Link Balance.** Capacitor balance is achieved using Equation (14), where $\lambda = 0.1$. As illustrated in Figure 7a, the proposed algorithm achieved voltage balance. Under *Sa1* OCF, the voltage across capacitor *VDC1* exceeds that of *VDC2* due to positive current distortion. The same for *Sa2* fault as seen in Figure 7b,c. In *Sa3* fault, switching states *O* and *N* are unattainable, preventing negative current flow. Consequently, *VDC2* voltage surpasses *VDC1* voltage, as illustrated in Figure 7d. Under *Sa4* fault circumstances, the absence of negative phase current causes *VDC2* voltage to become greater than *VDC1* voltage, as shown in Figure 7e.

# 4. Fault Detection and Localization

4.1. **Fault Identification Using MPC.** Each phase is divided into two categories. For example, group 1 in phase *a* consists of the two top switches, *Sa1* and *Sa2*, and the diode *Da1*. Group 2 consists of the two bottom switches, *Sa3* and *Sa4*, and the diode *Da2*.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5: Three-phase current under the Type-A OCF in (a) Sa1, (b) Sa2, (c) Sa3, and (d) Sa4. OCF, open-circuit fault.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 6: Three-phase current under OCF in clamping diodes (a) Da1 and (b) Da2. OCF, open-circuit fault.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 7: Continued.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 7: Capacitor voltage results for (a) no fault, (b) Sa1 fault, (c) Sa2 fault, (d) Sa3 fault, and (e) Sa4 fault.</figcaption></figure>

To detect the faulty group, the predicted average current $i_{avg}$ is used. The predicted current is calculated as follows using the finite MPC prediction algorithm explained in the flowchart of Figure 8:

$$i_{apm}(k + 1) = \left(1 - \frac{RT_s}{L}\right) i_L + \frac{T_s}{L}(v - v_g), \quad \text{for } m = 1, \dots, 3, \qquad (16)$$

where

$$v \in U = \left\{ \frac{V_{dc}}{2}, 0, -\frac{V_{dc}}{2} \right\}.$$

Then, the cost functions are calculated as follows:

$$g_{a,m} = |i_a(k) - i_a^p(k+1)|. \qquad (17)$$
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 8: Flowchart of finite set MPC algorithm. MPC, model predictive control.</figcaption></figure>

The optimal current is calculated as follows:

$$i_{a,\text{opt}} = \arg\left\{\min_{i_a(k)} g_{a,m}\right\}, \quad \text{for } m = 1, \dots, 3. \qquad (18)$$

The predicted average current is then:

$$i_{\text{avgp}} = 0.63 i_{a,\text{opt}}. \qquad (19)$$

The predicted average current calculated using Equation (19) is shown in Figure 9 with multiple faults. The faults in the simulations are set to occur 0.05 s after the beginning of the first cycle. The faulty group is identified based on the findings.

The predicted average current for group 2, Sa3, Sa4, and Da2, became negative at the moment of the fault, but for group 1, Sa1, Sa2, and Da1, it became negative after half a cycle of the fault occurrence. Based on these differences, the detection algorithm thresholds are set to distinguish between the two types of faults.

## 4.2. Identifying the Faulty Switch.
To identify the exact location of the fault, the phase current results under each fault is used. As seen in Figure 5, the current under the faults Sa1 and Sa2 appears the same, but there is a slight difference in the

signal at the beginning of the fault and the same is true for Sa3 and Sa4. Based on that slight difference in current, the thresholds are set to locate the fault precisely. Because of the model prediction's influence on tolerating the fault, there is a very slight shift in current for Da1 and Da2 results, but it is also detectable.

In order to simplify the understanding of the results, we set two fault signal indicators Y and Z, as explained in Table 3. The flowchart in Figure 10 explains the algorithm used to localize the faulty group and switch. In this work, a trial-and-error method is used to define the thresholds. To identify the faulty group, the predicted average current is first calculated using Equation (19). Then, the results are compared to thr1 when $\omega_t > p_i$. Finally, the current is compared to the remaining threshold in the corresponding time interval to determine the exact faulty switch or clamping diode. The results will be generated as signals Y and Z, as previously explained.

# 5. Simulation Results

## 5.1. Fault Detection and Identification

### 5.1.1. The Faulty Group.
As seen in Figure 11b-d, the fault signal Y was set to detect the faulty group. At time 0.05 s, when
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 9: Average current under open-switch fault (a) Sa1 fault, (b) Sa2 fault, (c) Da1 fault, (d) Sa3 fault, (e) Sa4 fault, and (f) Da2 fault.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE 3: Fault signal indicators.</caption><thead><tr><th>Fault signal</th><th>Z</th><th>Faulty switch</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>No fault</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>Sa1</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>Sa2</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>Da1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>-1</td><td>Sa3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>-2</td><td>Sa4</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>-3</td><td>Da2</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 10: Flowchart of the fault detection and localization algorithm.</figcaption></figure>

the fault occurred, the magnitude of Y indicated the presence of a fault condition in group 1 (Sa1 or Sa2 or Da1). The only difference between the three results is the detection time. Similarly, for the fault in group 2, as shown in Figure 11e-g, the magnitude of Y was 2, corresponding to the fault in this group. The detection time listed in Table 4 is calculated by differentiating the actual moment of the fault occurrence (when the current reaches the faulty switch) [41-45], and the moment we conducted the fault $t = 0.05$ s.

5.1.2. *The Faulty Switch and Clamping Diode.* All of the fault signals were identified, as shown in Figure 12. Each fault corresponds to a unique Z value, the fault occurred at moment $0.05$ s, the detection time varies, and the results are listed in

Table 4. Further, Table 4 indicates that the faults in Sa3, Sa2, and Sa4 were detected simultaneously at the same moment when the fault happened (see Figure 12b-d). However, for Sa1, the fault was spotted after a few milliseconds because of the fault occurrence on the current, as shown in Figure 12a. The faults for Da1 and Da2 took longer to be identified, but it was still less than a cycle for Da2, and one cycle for Da1. Nevertheless, because the MPC tolerated the error, it will not affect the system.

5.2. *Verification of Performance Analysis Under Parameter Drift and Unbalanced Grid Conditions.* In order to confirm the efficacy of our system, several simulations under different conditions were performed. The faults were intentionally
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 11: Y results for OCFs. (a) No fault, (b) Sa1 fault, (c) Sa2 fault, (d) Da1 fault, (e) Sa3 fault, (f) Sa4 fault, and (g) Da2 fault. OCFs, open-circuit faults.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE 4: Detection time.</caption><thead><tr><th>Y</th><th>Detection time (ms)</th><th>Z</th><th>Detection time (ms)</th><th>Faulty switch</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>No fault</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>Sa1</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>Sa2</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>20</td><td>3</td><td>20</td><td>Da1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>-1</td><td>0</td><td>Sa3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>-2</td><td>0</td><td>Sa4</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>-3</td><td>10</td><td>Da2</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 12: Continued.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 12: Continued.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 12: Z results for OCFs. (a) Sa1 fault, (b) Sa2 fault, (c) Sa3 fault, (d) Sa4 fault, (e) Da2 fault, and (f) Da1 fault. OCFs, open-circuit faults.</figcaption></figure>

introduced on switches Sa1 and diode Da2 to test the detection algorithm. These components were selected randomly to verify the fault detection strategy's generality.

### 5.2.1. Parameter Drift Analysis.
To verify the system under parameter drift, two scenarios were executed, the first is increasing the filter inductance by 20% and the second is reducing the filter resistance by 20%, then the fault in Sa1 and Da2 was conducted at $t = 0.05$ s. Figures 13 and 14 show the results of both scenarios, respectively. The fault detection time is mentioned in Table 5. As seen in the results, the detection and the localization of the faults are presented by Y and Z parameters, and the detection time is in a few milliseconds as expected, which confirms the robustness of the detection algorithm under these conditions.

### 5.2.2. Grid Voltage Distortion Analysis.
To evaluate the system's behavior under distorted grid conditions, two scenarios were tested: a mild voltage sag with a 30% reduction in phase-a voltage, as shown in Figure 15a, and a more severe voltage drop of 80% test in phase a is performed, as shown in Figure 16a. The fault in both Sa1 and Da2 was conducted at $t = 0.6$ s, which is in the interval of the voltage drop. In the case of a 30% voltage drop, the resulting output current is shown in Figure 15b. This voltage reduction did not affect the behavior of the output current, thanks to the robust regulation provided by the MPC. The results following the presence of faults in Sa1 and Da2 are presented in Figure 17, with the corresponding fault detection times summarized in Table 5. As observed, the fault detection algorithm performed as expected, successfully detecting and identifying the faults within a few milliseconds, meeting the desired performance criteria.

In the case of an 80% voltage drop, the resulting output current is shown in Figure 16b. This voltage reduction led to a small drop in the current of phase a regardless of the regulation

provided by the MPC and this is because of the severe drop which is considered as a fault in the grid. The results following the presence of faults in Sa1 and Da2 are presented in Figure 18, with the corresponding fault detection times summarized in Table 5. As observed, the fault detection algorithm performance was accepted since it was able to detect and identify the faults within a few milliseconds without additional sensors or calculations, which meets with the desired objectives.

## 6. Hardware in the Loop Validation

This section evaluates the performance of the proposed controller using the CU-SLRT Std real-time digital simulator (equivalent to the DS1104 interface). A HIL simulation was employed to validate the efficacy of the model predictive controller and the fault detection algorithm within the proposed system. The CU-SLRT real-time board offers enhanced computational capabilities and additional functionalities compared to the DS1104. It features a 6-core 2.6 GHz processor, FPGA-based I/Os, 16 analog inputs, 8 analog outputs, 16 digital I/O ports, and 16 PWM outputs. Moreover, it includes two encoders and supports communication interfaces such as Ethernet and RS232 connectors.

Figure 19 presents an image of the real-time experimental setup where MATLAB was used for the MPC with fault detection and inverter models. In this setup, two real-time systems with identical characteristics are used. The grid-connected three-phase NPC is initially modeled on a personal computer using MATLAB. This model is then executed onto the CU-SLRT real-time simulator (host-real time) via Ethernet and RS232 connectors. The system's outputs are managed through ADC channels. In parallel, the MPC controller with the fault detection algorithm is modeled on a separate computer and operated onto a second real-time simulator, also connected through Ethernet and RS232 connectors. The inputs are
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 13: For *L* increased by 20%, phase *a* output current and resulted *Y* and *Z*: (a) under *Sa1* OC fault and (b) under *Da2* OC fault.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 14: For R decreased by 20%, phase a output current and resulted Y and Z: (a) under Sa1 OC fault and (b) under Da2 OC fault.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>TABLE 5: Verification detection time.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Case</th><th colspan="2">Detection time (ms)</th></tr><tr><th>Sa1</th><th>Da2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>L increase by 20%</td><td>02</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>R decrease by 20%</td><td>02</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>V<sub>a</sub> drops by 30%</td><td>04</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>V<sub>a</sub> drops by 80%</td><td>10</td><td>50</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 15: Phase a grid voltage reduced by 30%: (a) grid voltage and (b) inverter output current.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 16: Phase a grid voltage reduced by 80%: (a) grid voltage and (b) inverter output current.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 17: Inverter output current and resulted Y and Z: (a) under Sa1 OC fault and (b) under Da2 OC fault.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 18: Inverter output current and resulted Y and Z: (a) under Sa1 OC fault and (b) under Da2 OC fault.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 19: Experimental set-up in real-time CU-SLRT. 1—MPC + fault detection and identification; 2—real-time CU-SLRT; 3—host real-time CU-SLRT; and 4—grid-tied NPC three-level inverter.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>TABLE 6: HIL parameters.</caption><thead><tr><td>Parameters</td><td>Value</td><td>Unit</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DC-link voltage (V<sub>dc</sub>)</td><td>300</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>Capacitor (C<sub>1</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>)</td><td>1000</td><td>μF</td></tr><tr><td>Filter inductance (L)</td><td>40</td><td>mH</td></tr><tr><td>Filter resistance (R)</td><td>0.05</td><td>Ω</td></tr><tr><td>Grid voltage (v<sub>g</sub>)</td><td>130</td><td>V<sub>rms</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Sampling frequency</td><td>20</td><td>kHz</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviation: HIL, hardware-in-the-loop.

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 20: Continued.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 20: Y results for OCFs and the three-phase current for (a) Sa1 fault, (b) Sa2 fault, (c) Da1 fault, (d) Sa3 fault, (e) Sa4 fault, and (f) Da2 fault. OCFs, open-circuit faults.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>TABLE 7: HIL detection time.</caption><thead><tr><td>Y</td><td>Detection time (ms)</td><td>Faulty switch</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>Sa1</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>Sa2</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>32</td><td>Da1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>Sa3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>Sa4</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>10</td><td>Da2</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviation: HIL, hardware-in-the-loop.

similarly handled via DAC channels. The system parameters used in this experiment are shown in Table 6.

Figure 20 illustrates the results corresponding to open-switch faults in the NPC inverter. The current waveforms validate the fault condition, and the Y parameter accurately indicates the fault location, as previously explained. Table 7

presents the fault detection times in milliseconds. While the detection times differ from those observed in the simulation, they remain sufficiently brief to allow the system to tolerate the fault without causing irreversible damage to the equipment and the electrical system as a whole.

To further evaluate the performance of the proposed fault diagnosis method, it is compared against several previously reported methods as summarized in Table 8.

## 7. Conclusion

This study focuses on detecting and localizing OCFs in grid-tied 3-L-NPC inverters. A new algorithm, integrating distorted current analysis with MPC, is introduced for efficient fault identification. This algorithm can detect faulty switches and clamping diodes in less than one fundamental period, providing a rapid solution without requiring additional hardware or complex calculations. The functionality of this approach is
<table><caption>TABLE 8: Method comparison.</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference</th><th>Inverter type</th><th>Detection parameter</th><th>Diagnostic content</th><th>Fault detection time</th><th>Fault identification time</th><th>Additional operations</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>[40]</td><td>Three-level NPC inverter (grid connected)</td><td>Three-phase currents</td><td>Switches, clamping diodes</td><td>≈1 FP</td><td>≈2 FP</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>[35]</td><td>Three-level NPC inverter (grid connected)</td><td>Three-phase currents</td><td>Switches, current sensor</td><td>≤0.15 FP</td><td>No identification of faulty switch</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>[43]</td><td>Three-level NPC inverter (grid connected)</td><td>Three-phase currents</td><td>Switches</td><td>>0.5 FP</td><td>>0.5 FP</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>[44]</td><td>Three-level NPC inverter (grid connected)</td><td>Three-phase currents, grid voltage</td><td>Switches</td><td>≤1 FP</td><td>≤1 FP</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>[45]</td><td>Three-level NPC rectifier</td><td>Instant converter voltages</td><td>Switches</td><td>≤0.15 FP</td><td>≤0.15 FP</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>[41]</td><td>Three-phase PWM inverter</td><td>Three-phase currents</td><td>Switches, current sensor</td><td>≈1.1 FP</td><td>No identification of faulty switch</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>[42]</td><td>Two-level voltage source</td><td>Three-phase currents</td><td>Switches, current sensor</td><td>0.3–0.9 FP</td><td>0.3–0.9 FP</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Proposed</td><td>Three-level NPC inverter (grid connected)</td><td>Three-phase currents</td><td>Switches, clamping diodes</td><td>≤0.5 FP</td><td>≤0.5 FP</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: FP, fundamental period; NPC, neutral point clamped.
established through the analysis of the predicted average phase current, calculated via MPC after introducing various faults at specific times. Additionally, distorted current analysis is used to precisely detect the faulted switch and clamping diode. The effectiveness of MPC in tolerating OCFs in clamping diodes is demonstrated by the output current, and simulation results confirm the reliability of the proposed fault detection algorithm. The HIL experiment validates these results for the faulty group. Furthermore, the proposed algorithm was verified under parameter drift and voltage imbalance conditions, demonstrating its robustness and proper functionality in these challenging scenarios. Future work will focus on detecting other types of faults in grid-tied NPC inverters, thereby enhancing the comprehensiveness and applicability of fault detection strategies in grid-connected converters.

## Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the authors.

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## Funding

This study did not receive any funding in any form.

## Acknowledgments

The authors have nothing to report.

## References

[1] S. Deliri, K. Varesi, Y. P. Siwakoti, and F. Blaabjerg, "A Boost Type Switched-Capacitor Multi-Level Inverter for Renewable Energy Sources With Self-Voltage Balancing of Capacitors," *International Journal of Energy Research* 45, no. 10 (2021): 15217-15230.

[2] A. Moses and H. Sun, "Bidirectional Energy Storage Photovoltaic Grid-Connected Inverter Application System," *International Journal of Energy Research* 44, no. 14 (2020): 11509-11523.

[3] Kitmo, S. Choudhury, A. A. Khan, S. Das, and M. F. Elnaggar, "Intelligent Approach for Control Techniques Based on Complex Converter Structures," *International Journal of Energy Research* 2023 (2023): 6770322, 13.

[4] E. Kabalci, E. Irmak, and I. Colak, "Design of an AC-DC-AC Converter for Wind Turbines," *International Journal of Energy Research* 35, no. 2 (2011): 169-175.

[5] L. Alhafadhi and J. Teh, "Advances in Reduction of Total Harmonic Distortion in Solar Photovoltaic Systems: A Literature Review," *International Journal of Energy Research* 44, no. 4 (2020): 2455-2470.

[6] Y. Luo, L. Zhang, C. Chen, K. Li, and K. Li, "Real-Time Diagnosis of Open Circuit Faults in Three-Phase Voltage Source Inverters," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 39, no. 6 (2024): 7572-7585.

[7] V.-Q.-B. Ngo, K.-Q. Nguyen, P. Viet Tuan, and K.-A. Nguyen, "Computationally Efficient Model Predictive Power Control With Self-Balancing Capacitor Voltages for Grid-Tied Nested

Neutral Point Clamped Inverter," *International Journal of Modelling and Simulation* 44, no. 2 (2024): 77-90.

[8] V. Boscaino, V. Ditta, G. Marsala, et al., "Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Inverters: Grid Codes, Topologies and Control Techniques," *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews* 189 (2024): 113903.

[9] N. Khosravi, A. Oubelaid, and Y. Belkhier, "Energy Management in Networked Microgrids: A Comparative Study of Hierarchical Deep Learning and Predictive Analytics Techniques," *Energy Conversion and Management: X* 25 (2025): 100828.

[10] A. Nawaz, D. Wang, A. Mahmoudi, et al., "MPC-Driven Optimal Scheduling of Grid-Connected Microgrid: Cost and Degradation Minimization With PEVs Integration," *Electric Power Systems Research* 238 (2025): 111173.

[11] A. Kheldoun, R. Bradai, R. Boukenoui, and A. Mellit, "A New Golden Section Method-Based Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithm for Photovoltaic Systems," *Energy Conversion and Management* 111 (2016): 125-136.

[12] N. Khosravi, R. Baghbanzadeh, and A. Oubelaid, "A Novel Control Approach to Improve the Stability of Hybrid AC/DC Microgrids," *Applied Energy* 344 (2023): 121261.

[13] N. Khosravi, H. R. Abdolmohammadi, S. Bagheri, and M. R. Miveh, "Improvement of Harmonic Conditions in the AC/DC Microgrids With the Presence of Filter Compensation Modules," *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews* 143 (2021): 110898.

[14] N. Debdouche, H. Benbouhenni, B. Deffaf, G. Anwar, and L. Zarour, "Predictive Direct Power Control With Phase-Locked Loop Technique of Three-Level Neutral Point Clamped Inverter Based Shunt Active Power Filter for Power Quality Improvement," *International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications* 52, no. 7 (2024): 3306-3340.

[15] H. Shen, X. Tang, Y. Luo, F. Xie, and Z. Shi, "Online Open-Circuit Fault Diagnosis for Neutral Point Clamped Inverter Based on an Improved Convolutional Neural Network and Sample Amplification Method Under Varying Operating Conditions," *IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement* 73 (2024): 1-12.

[16] N. Khosravi, S. Echalih, Z. Hekss, R. Baghbanzadeh, M. Messaoudi, and M. Shahideipour, "A New Approach to Enhance the Operation of M-UPQC Proportional-Integral Multiresonant Controller Based on the Optimization Methods for a Stand-Alone AC Microgrid," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 38, no. 3 (2022): 3765-3774.

[17] A. Tlenshiyeva, M. Tostado-Véliz, H. M. Hasanien, N. Khosravi, and F. Jurado, "A Data-Driven Methodology to Design User-Friendly Tariffs in Energy Communities," *Electric Power Systems Research* 228 (2024): 110108.

[18] X. Wei, H. Wang, A. Luo, et al., "Parallel Open-Circuit Fault Diagnosis Method of a Cascaded Full-Bridge NPC Inverter With Model Predictive Control," *IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics* 68, no. 10 (2020): 10180-10192.

[19] S. Xu, W. Huang, D. Huang, et al., "A Reduced-Order Observer-Based Method for Simultaneous Diagnosis of Open-Switch and Current Sensor Faults of a Grid-Tied NPC Inverter," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 38, no. 7 (2023): 9019-9032.

[20] C. Smith, A. Gargoom, M. T. Arif, and M. E. Haque, "Model Predictive Control of 3L-NPC Inverter to Enhance Fault Ride Through Capability Under Unbalanced Grid Conditions," *IET Power Electronics* 17, no. 14 (2024): 1973-1985.

[21] M. Azab, "A Finite Control Set Model Predictive Control Scheme for Single-Phase Grid-Connected Inverters," *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews* 135 (2021): 110131.
[22] B. Long, T. X. Cao, D. W. Sheng, J. Rodriguez, J. M. Guerrero, and K. T. Chong, "Sequential Model Predictive Fault-Tolerance Control for T-Type Three-Level Grid-Connected Converters With LCL Filters," *IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics* 69, no. 9 (2021): 9039-9051.

[23] M. Chen and Y. He, "Multiple Open-Circuit Fault Diagnosis Method in NPC Rectifiers Using Fault Injection Strategy," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 37, no. 7 (2022): 8554-8571.

[24] P. Li, R. Li, Y. He, and J. Zhang, "Adaptive Finite Control Set Model Predictive Control for Three-Phase Inverters Connected to Distorted Grid With Fewer Voltage Sensors," *Control Engineering Practice* 116 (2021): 104936.

[25] P. Li, X. Tong, Y. He, and T. Chen, "Adaptive Model Predictive Control for PUC Grid-Connected Inverter System With Inaccurate Parameters," *Control Engineering Practice* 139 (2023): 105652.

[26] M. Chen and Y. He, "Open-Circuit Fault Diagnosis in NPC Rectifiers Using Reference Voltage Deviation and Incorporating Fault-Tolerant Control," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 39, no. 1 (2023): 1514-1526.

[27] C. Xue, L. Ding, X. Wu, Y. Li, and W. Song, "Model Predictive Control for Grid-Connected Current-Source Converter With Enhanced Robustness and Grid-Current Feedback Only," *IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics* 10, no. 5 (2022): 5591-5603.

[28] A. Laib, F. Krim, B. Talbi, and A. Sahli, "A Predictive Control Scheme for Large-Scale Grid-Connected PV System Using High-Level NPC Inverter," *Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering* 45, no. 3 (2020): 1685-1701.

[29] M. Babaie and K. Al-Haddad, "Self Training Intelligent Predictive Control for Grid-Tied Transformerless Multilevel Converters," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 38, no. 10 (2023): 12482-12496.

[30] R. Manikandan and R. R. Singh, "Open Circuit Fault Localization in NPC Inverter Fed Induction Motor Drives Using Cost Function and Estimated Voltages," *IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs* 71, no. 2 (2023): 922-926.

[31] C. S. Lim, H. H. Goh, and S. S. Lee, "Long-Prediction-Horizon Near-Optimal Model Predictive Grid Current Control for PWM-Driven VSIs With LCL Filters," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 36, no. 2 (2020): 2246-2257.

[32] M. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z. Li, H. Chen, and D. Zhou, "A Unified Open-Circuit-Fault Diagnosis Method for Three-Level Neutral-Point-Clamped Power Converters," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 38, no. 3 (2022): 3834-3846.

[33] D. Ramirez, M. E. Zarei, M. Gupta, and J. Serrano, "Fast Model-Based Predictive Control (FMPC) for Grid Connected Modular Multilevel Converters (MMC)," *International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems* 119 (2020): 105951.

[34] H. Makhamreh, M. Sleiman, O. Kukrer, and K. Al-Haddad, "Lyapunov-Based Model Predictive Control of a PUC7 Grid-Connected Multilevel Inverter," *IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics* 66, no. 9 (2018): 7012-7021.

[35] S. Xu, W. Huang, H. Wang, et al., "A Simultaneous Diagnosis Method for Power Switch and Current Sensor Faults in Grid-Connected Three-Level NPC Inverters," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 38, no. 1 (2022): 1104-1118.

[36] Y. Yu and X. Wang, "Multi-Step Predictive Current Control for NPC Grid-Connected Inverter," *IEEE Access* 7 (2019): 157756-157765.

[37] S. Khettab, A. Kheldoun, R. Bradai, A. Oubelaid, S. Kumar, and N. Khosravi, "Performance Evaluation of PUC7-Based Multifunction Single-Phase Solar Active Filter in Real Outdoor Environments: Experimental Insights," *IET Renewable Power Generation* 18, no. 11 (2024): 1740-1757.

[38] T. M. Tamim, S. Li, and J. Wu, "Multi-Level Model Predictive Controller With Satisfactory Optimization for Multi-Level Converters," *Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory* 92 (2019): 1-16.

[39] A. Taheri and M. H. Zhalebaghi, "A New Model Predictive Control Algorithm by Reducing the Computing Time of Cost Function Minimization for NPC Inverter in Three-Phase Power Grids," *ISA Transactions* 71 (2017): 391-402.

[40] U. M. Choi, J. S. Lee, F. Blaabjerg, and K. B. Lee, "Open-Circuit Fault Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control for a Grid-Connected NPC Inverter," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 31, no. 10 (2016): 7234-7247.

[41] B. Gou, Y. Xu, Y. Xia, Q. Deng, and X. Ge, "An Online Data-Driven Method for Simultaneous Diagnosis of IGBT and Current Sensor Fault of Three-Phase PWM Inverter in Induction Motor Drives," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 35, no. 12 (2020): 13281-13294.

[42] S. K. El Khil, I. Jlassi, A. J. Cardoso, J. O. Estima, and N. Mrabet-Bellaaj, "Diagnosis of Open-Switch and Current Sensor Faults in PMSM Drives Through Stator Current Analysis," *IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications* 55, no. 6 (2019): 5925-5937.

[43] U.-M. Choi, H.-G. Jeong, K.-B. Lee, and F. Blaabjerg, "Method for Detecting an Open-Switch Fault in a Grid-Connected NPC Inverter System," *IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics* 27, no. 6 (2012): 2726-2739.

[44] J. A. Pecina Sánchez, D. U. Campos-Delgado, D. R. Espinoza-Trejo, A. A. Valdez-Fernández, and C. H. De Angelo, "Fault Diagnosis in Grid-Connected PV NPC Inverters by a Model-Based and Data Processing Combined Approach," *IET Power Electronics* 12, no. 12 (2019): 3254-3264.

[45] L. M. A. Caseiro and A. M. S. Mendes, "Real-Time IGBT Open-Circuit Fault Diagnosis in Three-Level Neutral-Point-Clamped Voltage-Source Rectifiers Based on Instant Voltage Error," *IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics* 62, no. 3 (2015): 1669-1678.