## 5 Simulation  
In this section, it is proved by simulation with MATLAB/Simulink that the proposed harmonic suppression strategy can effectively suppress the harmonic current. The simulation model of HPR is shown in Figure 15. \(\mathrm{S_{5}}\)-\(\mathrm{S_{8}}\) form thee inverter bridge of the PSFB. \(C_{\mathrm{r}}\) is the blocking capacitor, and T is the high frequency transformer. \(\mathrm{D_{1}}\)-\(\mathrm{D_{4}}\) are high frequency diode rectifier bridges. \(L_{\mathrm{o}}\) and \(C_{\mathrm{o}}\) constitute the output filtering circuit. The simulation parameters are displayed in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & **Indicator a** & **Indicator b** & **Indicator c** & **Indicator d** \\ \hline The PI controller & \(\times\) & \(\surd\) & \(\surd\) & \(\times\) \\ The resonant & \(\surd\) & \(\surd\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ elements controller & \(\times\) & \(\surd\) & \(\surd\) & \(\times\) \\ The QPR controller & \(\times\) & \(\surd\) & \(\surd\) & \(\times\) \\ The HSCM & \(\surd\) & \(\surd\) & \(\surd\) & \(\surd\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of four methods. Figure 14: The control structure diagram of the SPR. Figure 15: The simulation model of the HPR. In Table 2, \(f_{s}\) is the switching frequency. \(P_{\text{out}}\) is the output power. To verify the correctness and effectiveness of the proposed method, analysis will be conducted from two aspects: the presence of harmonics in the grid voltage and the disturbance injection into the grid voltage. Injecting harmonics into the power grid can be done in two ways: injecting harmonics of a single frequency and injecting a mixture of harmonics at multiple frequencies. The kinds of harmonic injection are shown in Table 3.  
When the power grid contains only the fundamental frequency, the simulation results of \(u_{\text{s}}\) and \(i_{\text{s}}\) are shown in Figure 16.  
Figure 16 only shows the results of the steady state and does not display the transient process. THD(\(u_{\text{s}}\)) is THD (total harmonic distortion) of \(u_{\text{s}}\), THD(\(i_{\text{s}}\)) is THD of \(i_{\text{s}}\) and PF is the power factor. These notations are the same for the subsequent simulation results and experimental results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline \(u_{\text{s}}\) & 1102 cos(100 rt)V \\ \(L_{\text{s}}\) & 1 mH \\ \(r_{\text{s}}\) & 0.04 \(\Omega\) \\ \(C_{\text{i}}\) & 470 uF \\ \(f_{\text{s}}\) & 10 kHz \\ \(u_{\text{o}}\) & 60 V \\ \(P_{\text{out}}\) & 1500 W \\ \(R_{\text{o}}\) & 2.4 \(\Omega\) \\ \(C_{\text{o}}\) & 220 uF \\ T & 2:1 \\ \(C_{r}\) & 10 uF \\ \(u_{\text{dc}}\) & 400 V \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation parameters of the HPR. Figure 16: \(u_{\text{s}}\) and \(i_{\text{s}}\) without harmonic distortion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Harmonics** & **Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Integer multiple harmonics**} & \(-0.0018\text{cos}(2\omega t+94.9^{\circ})-0.0318\text{cos}(3\omega t+9.9^{ \circ})\) \\  & \(-0.0035\text{cos}(4\omega t+92.9^{\circ})-0.0023\text{cos}(5\omega t-64.1^{ \circ})\) \\  & \(-0.0009\text{cos}(6\omega t+86.4^{\circ})-0.0072\text{cos}(7\omega t-2.7^{ \circ})\) \\  & \(-0.0016\text{cos}(8\omega t+26.3^{\circ})-0.0098\text{cos}(9\omega t+110.1^{ \circ})\) V \\  & \(-0.0018\text{cos}(2.5\omega t+94.9^{\circ})-0.0318\text{cos}(3.5\omega t+9.9^{ \circ})\) \\ \multirow{2}{*}{**Interharmonics**} & \(-0.0035\text{cos}(4.5\omega t+92.9^{\circ})-0.0023\text{cos}(5.5\omega t-64.1^{ \circ})\) \\  & \(-0.0009\text{cos}(6.5\omega t+86.4^{\circ})-0.0072\text{cos}(7.5\omega t-2.7^{ \circ})\) \\  & \(-0.0016\text{cos}(8.5\omega t+26.3^{\circ})-0.0098\text{cos}(9.5\omega t+110.1^{ \circ})\) V \\
**Supraharmonics** & \(-0.318\text{cos}(3500\omega t+9.9^{\circ})-0.18\text{cos}(4500\omega t+94.9^{ \circ})\) V \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The kinds of harmonic in \(u_{\text{s}}\).