## 5 Simulation Examples  
The parameters listed in Table 2 were calculated for simulation examples. Three different modulation methods were implemented using these parameters. In Table 2, the DC link input voltage \(V_{DC}\) was calculated using Equation (6). Similarly, the average DC link current can be calculated using Equation (17) below. \[I_{DC}=\frac{P_{0}}{V_{DC}} \tag{17}\]  
Next, the value of \(L_{DC}\) was selected by using Equation (7) and choosing a 10% ripple current, which was 16 \(A\times 10\%=1.6\) A. Please note that the switching and conduction losses were ignored for all the calculations and simulations for the sake of simplicity. Table 3 presents the total harmonic distortion values for three different PWMs. The table indicates that the THD values are quite low. The waveforms illustrate the potential of these modulation techniques in terms of minimizing THD. In addition, the calculated values correspond closely with the simulation values. For instance, the CSI modulation index shows a discrepancy of only 0.3% compared to the simulation value, with the calculated value being 0.9 and the simulated value being 0.8725 for the VSI-derived CSI SVM modulator case. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Calculated Value** \\ \hline Input voltage (\(V_{DC}\)) & 470 V \\ Phase voltage (\(V_{P}\)) & 230 V\({}_{\text{RMS}}\) \\ Output power (\(P_{0}\)) & 7.5 kW \\ Phase power (\(P_{P}\)) & 2.5 kW \\ DC link inductance (\(L_{DC}\)) & 1 mH \\ Filter inductance (\(L_{F}\)) & 500 \(\mu\)H \\ Filter capacitance (\(C_{F}\)) & 6.8 \(\mu\)F \\ Load resistance (\(R_{L}\)) & 21.16 \(\Omega\) \\ Switching frequency (\(f_{sw}\)) & 50 kHz \\ Time overlap & 200 ns \\ _Cos\(\varnothing\)_ & 0.98 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Calculated parameters applied to all three CSIs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} Lowest THD, reduced switching losses. \\ 33\% lower switching losses due to \\ reduced \(f_{sw}\). \\ Exceptional performance in all metrics. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparative evaluation of CSI modulation techniques: THD, efficiency, and key characteristics under standardized conditions (\(V_{DC}=470\) V,\(f_{sw}=50\) kHz, \(R_{L}\)= 21.16 \(\Omega\)). Table 3 compares the efficiency and THD of the three modulation techniques under the same simulation conditions. It is important to note that these results reflect idealized component behavior to isolate the impact of modulation strategies. Despite these controlled conditions, the models presented in this paper provide consistent comparisons of THD and efficiency across three modulation techniques under idealized conditions (e.g., lossless components, perfect switching). Although these findings demonstrate the theoretical potential of each approach, practical implementations may vary due to parasitic effects, non-linearities, or equipment limitations. The key objective of the models, therefore, is to provide a consistent baseline for researchers and engineers to assess modulation techniques prior to hardware prototyping investment. Figure 21a shows the trade-offs between harmonic performance and the modulation index, while Figure 21b shows the efficiency as a function of the modulation index. All modulation methods achieve a total harmonic distortion of less than 5%, which is below the limits set by several standards [35; 36]. However, as indicated in Table 3 and Figure 21, the DDPWM method obtains an even lower THD under the same conditions and parameters. Figure 21a demonstrates that DDPWM achieves excellent waveform quality, with THD values significantly lower than those of VSI-derived SVM (0.42% vs. 1.72% at \(m=0.9\)). This is supported by the efficiency graph in Figure 21b, which shows that DDPWM has an advantage in energy conversion (97% efficiency vs. 94% for VSI-derived SVM at the same \(m\)), resulting from a 33% decrease in effective switching frequency.