IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO.
6, JUNE 2016
A Novel Buck–Boost AC–AC Converter With Both
Inverting and Noninverting Operations and Without
Commutation Problem
Hafiz Furqan Ahmed, Honnyong Cha, Member, IEEE, Ashraf Ali Khan, and Heung-Geun Kim, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper proposes a new type of ac–ac converter
which can operate as traditional noninverting buck and boost con-
verters, and inverting buck–boost converter as well. The proposed
converter uses six unidirectional current flowing and bidirectional
voltage blocking switches, implemented by six reverse blocking
insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) or series MOSFET–diode
pairs, two input and output filter capacitors, and one inductor. It
has no shoot-through problem of voltage source (or capacitor) even
when all switches are turned-on, and therefore, pulsewidth mod-
ulation dead-times are not needed resulting in high-quality wave-
forms, and solves the commutation problem without using bulky
and lossy RC snubbers or dedicated soft-commutation strategies.
It has smaller switching losses because only two switches out of six
are switched at high frequency during each half-cycle of input volt-
age, and it can use power MOSFETs as body diode never conducts,
making it immune from MOSFET failure risk which otherwise may
occur due to poor reverse recovery problem of body diode. The non-
inverting buck–boost mode of the proposed converter can be used
in applications with both step-up and step-down demand, while the
inverting buck–boost mode can also be used in its application as dy-
namic voltage restorer. Detailed analysis of the proposed converter
is given, and experimental results are also provided.
Index Terms—AC–AC converter, buck–boost capability,
commutation problem, inverting and noninverting operation.
I. INTRODUCTION
RADITIONALLY, in industry, the ac–ac power conver-
T sions are performed by using ac thyristor power con-
trollers, which use the phase angle or integral cycle control
on input ac voltage, to get the desired output ac voltage. How-
ever, the obvious disadvantages of ac thyristor controllers such
as low power factor, large total harmonic distortion in source
current and lower efficiency, have limited their use [1]. For ac–
ac power conversions with variable frequency and voltage, the
use of indirect ac–ac converters with dc-link [2]–[4] and ma-
trix converters [5]–[9] have been advanced because they can
Manuscript received April 24, 2015; revised June 25, 2015; accepted August
3, 2015. Date of publication August 13, 2015; date of current version January
7, 2016. This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through
the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of
Science, ICT and Future Planning (NRF-2013R1A2A2A01069038). Recom-
mended for publication by Associate Editor J.-i. Itoh.
H. F. Ahmed, H. Cha, and A. A. Khan are with the School of Energy Engi-
neering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, South Korea (e-mail:
furqanhmd164@gmail.com; chahonny@knu.ac.kr; 08beeashrafa@seecs.edu.
pk).
H.-G. Kim is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Kyungpook
National University, Daegu 702-701, South Korea (e-mail: hgkim@knu.ac.kr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPEL.2015.2468585
0885-8993 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
4241
obtain better power factor and efficiency, and smaller filter re-
quirements. However, for applications in which only voltage
regulation is needed, the direct pulsewidth modulation (PWM)
ac–ac converters [10]–[24] are more preferred because they can
reduce the size and cost of converter.
All of these direct PWM ac–ac converters in [10]–[24] are
obtained from their dc–dc counterparts, where all the unidi-
rectional switches are replaced with bidirectional devices [25].
However, each topology has its own limitations; the buck-type
ac–ac converter [10], [21]–[23] can only step down the input
voltage while boost type [10], [11] can only step up the in-
put voltage. The buck–boost [10], [12] and Cuk [10] topology
can both step up and step down the input voltage; however, the
phase angle is reversed. Moreover, both topologies have disad-
vantage of higher voltage stress across switches, and there are
discontinuous input and output currents in case of the buck–
boost converter. The Cuk topology can overcome the currents
discontinuity but at the cost of additional passive components,
increasing the size and cost of converter and decreasing the effi-
ciency. The ac–ac converters based on the impedance source net-
work also called (q)ZS ac–ac converters [1], [9], [16]–[20], can
both buck and boost the input voltage, but the step-down opera-
tion always results in reversing of phase angle. Moreover, they
use more passive components and have higher current flowing
through active switches during shoot-through, which make their
use less attractive. In [21]–[23], buck-type multilevel ac–ac con-
verters based on the concept of flying capacitors are proposed,
which can reduce the voltage stress of switches and improve the
quality of output voltage. However, they need RLC booster to
be connected in parallel to load, in order to reduce the voltage
imbalance problem of flying capacitors.
All of the direct PWM ac–ac converters [10]–[23] have a com-
mon commutation problem, which occurs because compared to
the ideal situation in which the complementary switches do not
have any overlap or dead-time; however, practically there ex-
ists a small overlap or dead-time owing to different time delays
of gating signals and limited speed of switching devices. Dur-
ing the overlap time between complementary switches, either a
short-circuit of voltage source (or capacitor) occurs [10], [14],
or two capacitors with different voltages become in parallel to
each other [1], [16]–[20]; both of which results in current spikes
which may damage the switching devices. During the dead-
time, there is no current path for the flow of inductor current
[10], [12], or two inductors become in series [1], [16]–[20], re-
sulting in voltage spikes which may also damage the switch-
ing devices. To solve this commutation problem, the PWM
4242 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 6, JUNE 2016

dead-times are intentionally added in switching signals to avoid

overlap time, and then bulky and lossy RC snubbers are used
to protect switching devices from voltage spikes [16], or ded-
icated safe-commutation strategies [18]–[20] are implemented
to provide continuous inductor current path during dead-time.
These PWM dead-times not only reduce the quality of output
voltage, but also limit the maximum obtainable voltage gain and
switching frequency [26]–[28]. In [24], switching cell structure
and coupled inductors are used to solve commutation problem in
conventional buck, boost and buck–boost converters. However,
the two additional bulky coupled inductors increase the vol-
ume of the converter, and this method cannot address the gain
limitations of buck and boost converters, and the drawbacks of
inverting buck–boost converter. In [25]–[26], direct ac–ac con-
verters consisting of buck, full-bridge, half-bridge, and push–
Fig. 1. Three basic direct PWM ac–ac converters. (a) Buck type. (b) Boost
pull ac–ac converters are implemented using commercial power type. (c) Inverting buck–boost type.
modules. In [27]–[29], buck and boost type ac–ac converters are
proposed based on switched capacitor, cascaded three level and
buck–boost type topology with controllable phase. All of these
ac–ac converters in [25]–[29] also suffer from commutation
problem which decreases their reliability.
These direct PWM ac–ac converters typically employed IG-
BTs, and therefore, cannot obtain benefits of using MOSFETs
(such as low switching loss, resistive conduction voltage drop,
and fast switching speed, etc.) because of following reasons;
they are hard-switched ac–ac converter, and the body diodes of
bidirectional switches also conduct same amount of current as
the active switches. Therefore, the poor reverse recovery prob-
lem [29]–[31] of MOSFETs body diodes prevents their use in
these hard-switched ac–ac converters.
For the application of these direct ac–ac converters in dy-
namic voltage restorers (DVRs) [32], [33], to compensate a
complete range of voltage sags and swells, they are required
both inverting and noninverting buck–boost operations. How-
ever, the ac–ac converters in [10]–[15] can either produce in
Fig. 2. Noninverting buck–boost ac–ac converter. (a) Circuit topology. (b)
phase voltage or out of phase voltage, but not the both. The Gating signals for buck mode operation. (c) Gating signals for boost mode
(q)ZS ac–ac converters [1], [16]–[20] can produce both invert- operation.
ing and noninverting output voltages in boost mode, but the
buck mode is only associated with voltage inversion. Therefore, current flows through body diodes of switches, and therefore,
when these (q)ZS ac–ac converters are used as DVRs [32], they it can use power MOSFETs along with fast recovery diodes in
cannot compensate a voltage sag of less than 50% due to the series, which decreases switching losses and poor reverse re-
absence of noninverting buck operation. covery problem of MOSFETs body diodes is also avoided. The
To overcome the aforementioned drawbacks of existing di- noninverting buck–boost modes of proposed converter are suit-
rect PWM ac–ac converters, a direct ac–ac converter is pro- able for applications with both step-up and step-down demand
posed which combines the functionality of noninverting buck while the inverting buck–boost mode can also be utilized in
and boost converters, and inverting buck–boost converter, in DVR application to compensate both voltage sags and swells.
one topology. The proposed converter uses the same number
of passive components as a single noninverting buck or boost
converter, or inverting buck–boost converter. The proposed con- II. CONVENTIONAL AC–AC CONVERTER TOPOLOGIES
verter is immune from shoot-through of voltage source (or ca- Fig. 1(a), (b), and (c) shows the traditional noninverting buck
pacitors) even when all switches are turned on simultaneously, and boost converters and inverting buck–boost converter, re-
which enhances its reliability and it does not need PWM dead- spectively. The buck topology in Fig. 1(a) has a voltage gain of
time which results in high-quality output voltage. Even though D (where D is duty ratio, andD ≤ 1), and therefore, it has only
it uses six unidirectional current conducting bidirectional volt- step-down operation. The boost topology as shown in Fig. 2(b)
age blocking switches, only two of them are switched at high has a gain of1/(1 − D), with only voltage step-up operation.
frequency in each half-cycle during any operating mode, result- The buck–boost converter in Fig. 1(c) has a voltage gain of
ing in smaller switching losses. In the proposed converter, no D/(1 − D), with both step-up and step-down operations, but
AHMED et al.: NOVEL BUCK–BOOST AC–AC CONVERTER WITH BOTH INVERTING AND NONINVERTING OPERATIONS
Fig. 3. Circuit topology of the proposed ac–ac converter.
output voltage is inverted. Moreover, it has higher switch volt-
age stresses, higher inductor current and current ripple, and
discontinuous input and output currents.
Due to these obvious disadvantages, the dc–dc counterpart
of this inverting buck–boost ac–ac converter is often replaced
with noninverting buck–boost converter (two switch buck–boost
converter) [34]–[36], which is obtained by cascading simple
buck topology with boost topology. The noninverting buck–
boost ac–ac converter as shown in Fig. 2(a) can be obtained by
replacing all unidirectional switches in its dc–dc counterparts
in [34]–[36], with bidirectional switches. The gating signals
pattern for buck and boost modes are given in Fig. 2(b) and
(c), respectively. This converter has a voltage gain of D in buck
mode and 1/(1 − D)in boost mode. This noninverting buck–
boost converter has benefits in that it covers a wide range of input
voltage, it has noninverting output voltage, lower voltage stress
on switches, lower inductor current and current ripple. However,
it has following drawbacks; it uses eight switches, needs PWM
dead--times and dedicated safe commutation strategy to solve
commutation problem, and cannot use MOSFETs as the current
flows through body diodes of switches. Moreover, it can obtain
only noninverting buck–boost voltage and lacks inverting buck–
boost operation, which is also desired in its application as DVR,
to compensate both voltage sags and swells.
III. PROPOSED AC–AC CONVERTER
Fig. 3 shows the circuit topology of the proposed ac–ac con-
verter consisting of six unidirectional current flowing bidirec-
tional voltage blocking switches S1 − S6 , one inductor L, and
two input and output filter capacitors Cin and Co . The six uni-
directional current switches can be realized by series combina-
tion of power MOSFETs with external fast recovery diodes, as
shown in Fig. 3. In this figure, body diodes of MOSFETs are
not shown as they never conduct, and thus, their poor reverse
recovery problem is eliminated. For high power applications,
it can either use six reverse blocking IGBTs (RB-IGBTs) [37],
or six IGBTs (without body diode) with external fast recovery
diodes in series. The proposed converter can operate as tradi-
tional noninverting buck and boost converters with voltage gain
of D and 1/(1 − D), respectively, and also as inverting buck–
boost converter with voltage gain of D/(1 − D). By using only
4243
Fig. 4. Possible shoot-through paths when all gating signals are high.
six switches, it can combine the functionality of eight switches
noninverting buck–boost converter shown in Fig. 2(a), and four
switches inverting buck–boost converter shown in Fig. 1(c).
Therefore, it can be used as noninverting buck–boost converter
to replace the traditional inverting buck–boost converter in var-
ious ac–ac conversion applications. For its application as DVR,
the noninverting buck–boost mode can be used to compensate
voltage sags (which occurs more often), and inverting buck–
boost mode for voltage swells (which occurs less often) [32].
A. Commutation Study of the Proposed Converter
Consider the case in which all of the six gating signals of
switches in the proposed converter are high, offering many
closed paths for current to flow. However, three of them named as
loops “a,” “b,” and “c” in Fig. 4 can actually cause shoot-through
of voltage source (or capacitors), only if the current could flow
through them. The flow of current through loop “a,” “b,” and
“c” could cause the short-circuit of input voltage, output voltage
and direct parallel connection of input voltage and output volt-
age, respectively, each of which can results in excessive current
flow through switching devices which may damage them. How-
ever, as can be seen in Fig. 4, all of these three paths contain two
unidirectional switches with their series diodes connected in op-
posite direction. Therefore, a closed loop cannot be formed for
current flow as one of the series diodes would always become
reverse biased, which eliminates the shoot-through problem. For
example, in path “a”, series diodes of switches S1 and S2 are
connected in opposite direction, and input voltage cannot be
short-circuited as only one of their series diodes can conduct at
a time while the other becomes reverse biased. All of the other
possible closed paths for the flow of current, when all gating sig-
nals are high, contain the inductor L in series which avoids the
current overshoot. This immunity from shoot-through problem
increases the reliability of the proposed converter as it has no
commutation problem, and also the PWM dead-times in gating
signals are not needed, which increase quality of output voltage.
B. Noninverting Buck Mode Operation
The PWM switching sequence of the proposed converter dur-
ing noninverting buck mode operation and key waveforms are
shown in Fig. 5. For positive half of input ac voltage (vin > 0),
4244
Fig. 5. Key operational waveforms during noninverting buck mode operation.
Fig. 6. Noninverting buck operation when v in > 0. Equivalent circuit (a)
during DT and (b) during (1 − D)T .
switches S1 , S3 , S6 are always turn on and S4 , S5 are always
turn off, while switch S2 is switched at high frequency. Fig. 6
shows the equivalent circuits of the proposed converter for
vin > 0. The circuit shown in Fig. 6(a) is during DT interval
in which switch S2 is turned on and the input energy is stored
in inductorL. Even though the switch S1 is also turned on, how-
ever, its external series diode becomes reverse biased because of
inverse input voltage vin across it. Therefore, no current flows
through switchS1 during this interval, as shown in Fig. 6(a).
Applying KVL, we get
vL = vin − vo .
During (1 − D)T interval as shown in Fig. 6(b), switch S2 is
turned off while S1 conducts in this interval as its series diode
becomes forward biased due to free-wheeling action of inductor
L current. Energy stored in inductor is released to load in this
interval. Applying KVL yields
vL = −vo .
For vin < 0, switches S2 , S4 , S5 are always turn on while
switches S3, S6 are always turn off, and S1 becomes high fre-
quency switch. The operation for vin < 0 is same as ex-
plained for vin > 0, with only difference is that now the switch
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 6, JUNE 2016
Fig. 7. Noninverting buck operation when v in < 0. Equivalent circuit (a)
during DT and (b) during (1 − D)T .
Fig. 8. Key operational waveforms during noninverting boost mode operation.
S1 performs same as S2 (for vin > 0), and vice versa. The
equivalent circuits during this negative half-cycle are shown in
Fig. 7(a) and (b). By applying volt–second balance condition on
inductorLfrom (1) and (2), the gain in this buck mode is given
by
vo
= D. (3)
vin
From (3), it can be concluded that the voltage gain of the
proposed ac–ac converter in this operation mode is the same as
that of noninverting buck ac–ac converter.
(1)
C. Noninverting Boost Mode Operation
The switching sequence of the proposed converter during non-
inverting boost mode operation and key waveforms are shown in
Fig. 8. For vin > 0, switches S2 , S3 , S6 are always turn on and
S1 , S4 are always turn off, while switch S5 is switched at high
frequency. Fig. 9 shows the equivalent circuits of the proposed
converter for vin > 0. The circuit shown in Fig. 9(a) is during
(2)
DT interval in which switch S5 is turned on and the input energy
is stored in inductor L. The switch S6 is also turned on; how-
ever, its external series diode becomes reverse biased because of
inverse output voltage vo across it. Therefore, no current flows
through switchS6 during this interval, as shown in Fig. 9(a).
AHMED et al.: NOVEL BUCK–BOOST AC–AC CONVERTER WITH BOTH INVERTING AND NONINVERTING OPERATIONS
Fig. 9. Noninverting boost operation when v in > 0. Equivalent circuit (a)
during DT and (b) during (1 − D)T .
Fig. 10. Noninverting boost operation when v in < 0. Equivalent circuit (a)
during DT and (b) during (1 − D)T .
Applying KVL, we get
vL = vin .
During (1 − D)T interval as shown in Fig. 9(b), switch S5 is
turned off while S6 conducts in this interval as its series diode
becomes forward biased due to free-wheeling action of inductor
L current. Energy stored in inductor is released to load in this
interval. Applying KVL yields
vL = vin − vo .
For vin < 0, switches S1 , S4 , S5 are always turn on while
switches S2 , S3 are always turn off, and S6 becomes high fre-
quency switch. The operation for vin < 0 is the same as ex-
plained for vin > 0, with only difference is that now the opera-
tion of switch S6 is same as that of S5 (for vin > 0), and vice
versa. The equivalent circuits during this half-cycle are shown in
Fig. 10(a) and (b). By applying volt–second balance condition
on inductor L from (4) and (5), the voltage gain in this boost
mode is given by
vo 1
= .
vin 1−D
From (6), it can be concluded that the voltage gain of the
proposed ac–ac converter in this operation mode is the same as
that of noninverting boost ac–ac converter.
4245
Fig. 11. Key operational waveforms during inverting buck–boost mode
operation.
Fig. 12. Inverting buck–boost operation when v in > 0. Equivalent circuit (a)
(4) during DT and (b) during (1 − D)T .
D. Inverting Buck–Boost Mode Operation
The switching sequence of the proposed converter during
inverting buck–boost mode operation and key waveforms are
shown in Fig. 11. For vin > 0, switches S2 , S4 , S5 are al-
ways turn on and S1 , S6 are always turn off, while switch S3
is switched at high frequency. Fig. 12 shows the equivalent cir-
(5) cuits of the proposed converter for vin > 0. The circuit shown in
Fig. 12(a) is during DT interval in which switch S3 is turned on
and the input energy is stored in inductorL. The switch S4 is also
turned on; however, its external series diode becomes reverse
biased because of inverse voltage (vin + vo ) across it. There-
fore, no current flows through switch S4 during this interval, as
shown in Fig. 12(a). Applying KVL, we get
vL = vin . (7)
During (1 − D)T interval as shown in Fig. 12(b), switch S3
(6) is turned off while S4 conducts in this interval as its series diode
becomes forward biased due to free-wheeling action of inductor
L current. Energy stored in inductor is released to load in this
interval. Applying KVL yields
vL = −vo . (8)
4246 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 6, JUNE 2016

Fig. 13. Inverting buck–boost operation when v in < 0. Equivalent circuit (a)
during DT and (b) during (1 − D)T .

For vin < 0, switches S1 , S3 , S6 are always turn on while

switches S2 , S5 are always turn off, and S4 becomes high fre-
quency switch. The operation for vin < 0 is the same as ex-
plained for vin > 0, with only difference is that now the switch
S4 acts the same as S3 (for vin > 0), and vice versa. The equiv-
alent circuits during this half-cycle are shown in Fig. 13(a) and
(b). By applying volt–second balance condition on inductor L
from (7) and (8), the gain in this buck–boost mode is given by

vo D
= . (9)
vin 1−D

From (9), it can be concluded that the voltage gain of the

proposed ac–ac converter in this operation mode is the same as
that of inverting buck–boost ac–ac converter.

E. Comparison With Conventional Noninverting

Buck–Boost Converter
Traditional buck and boost ac–ac converters in Fig. 1(a)
and (b), despite their various advantages (lower switch volt-
age stresses, lower inductor current, and current ripple) over the
inverting buck–boost converter in Fig. 1(c), cannot replace it in
applications with both buck and boost demand because of their
inability to step up (for buck type) and step down (for boost
type) the voltage. Therefore, the noninverting buck–boost ac–
ac converter in Fig. 2 is normally used to replace the inverting
buck–boost converter, as it retains all the benefits of conven-
tional buck and boost converters. However, the proposed ac–
ac converter can provide noninverting buck–boost functionality
as the eight switch noninverting buck–boost ac–ac converter
(see Fig. 2) with the following advantages; it saves two active
switches, has no commutation problem (overlap time can be
allowed), can use high speed power MOSFETs (no reverse re-
covery problem as body diodes never conduct), and also possess
inverting buck–boost function which can be utilized in DVR.
In this section, the component stresses of the proposed con-
verter in noninverting buck–boost mode are compared with non-
inverting buck–boost converter under the condition of the same
input voltage Vin , output voltage Vo , and power Po (where Vin ,
Vo , and Po are peak values).
Fig. 14. Comparison of normalized switch voltage stress versus voltage gain
for the two converters. (a) Buck mode operation. (b) Boost mode operation.
1) The current flowing through inductor for the two convert-
ers are given below for the same Vin ,Vo , and Po :
⎧
⎪ Po
⎪
⎨ IL ,N I .buck = V
o
(10)
⎪
⎪ P
⎩ IL ,N I .b o ost = o .
Vin
Equation (10) gives the inductor currents for the nonin-
verting buck–boost and the proposed converter operating
in noninverting buck–boost modes. From (10), it is clear
that the proposed converter has the same current flowing
through inductor as the inverting buck–boost converter.
The same inductor current also passes through all eight
switches of the noninverting buck–boost converter and
all six switches of the proposed converter, and therefore,
all the switches in two converters have same current
ratings. The inductor current ripple equations for the two
AHMED et al.: NOVEL BUCK–BOOST AC–AC CONVERTER WITH BOTH INVERTING AND NONINVERTING OPERATIONS 4247

TABLE I
CURRENT AND VOLTAGE STRESSES OF THE PROPOSED AC–AC CONVERTER

Mode Inductor current Switch voltages Switch currents

Po
IS x , m a x =
Noninverting buck mode Vo
where x = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Po √ √ 
VS 1 , S 2 = Vin IS 1 , r m s = √ D + 1 −D
2V o
Po Po √ √ 
IL = VS 3 , S 4 = Vo − Vin IS 2 , r m s = √ D + 1 −D
Vo 2V o
Vo Po
Δ iL = (1 − D )T VS 5 , S 6 = Vo IS y , r m s = , y = 3, 4, 5, 6
L 2V o
Po
IS x , m a x =
Noninverting boost mode Vin
where x = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Po √ √ 
V S 1 , S 2 = −V i n IS 5 , r m s = √ D + 1 −D
2V i n
Po Po √ √ 
IL = VS 3 , S 4 = Vo − Vin IS 6 , r m s = √ D + 1 −D
Vin 2V i n
Vo Po
Δ iL = D (1 − D )T VS 5 , S 6 = Vo IS y , r m s = , y = 1, 2, 3, 4
L 2V i n

1 1
IS x , m a x = P o +
Inverting buck–boost mode Vin Vo
where x = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
  
Po 1 1 √ √
V S 1 , S 2 = −V i n IS 3 , r m s = √ + D + 1 −D
2 Vin Vo
   
1 1 Po 1 1 √ √
IL = P o + VS 3 , S 4 = Vin + Vo IS 4 , r m s = √ + D + 1 −D
Vin Vo 2 Vin Vo

Po 1 1
Vo IS y , r m s = +
Δ iL = (1 − D )T VS 5 , S 6 = Vo 2 Vin Vo
L where y = 1, 2, 5, 6

converters are also given by The switch voltage stresses of two converters in boost mode
are also given as follows:
⎧ ⎧
⎪
⎪ Vo
(1 − D) T ⎪ VS 1, S 2 = Vin
⎨ ΔiL ,N I .buck = ⎪
⎨
L
(11) VS 3, S 4 = Vo − Vin
⎪
⎪
(14)
⎩ ΔiL ,N I .b o ost = Vo D (1 − D) T. ⎪
⎪
⎩
L VS 5, S 6 = Vo


From (11), it is concluded that both converters have the VS 2,S 3 = Vin
same inductor current ripple for the same inductance value (15)
VS 5,S 6, S 7,S 8 = Vo
L and switching time period T.
2) The proposed converter uses six active switches compared where (14) and (15) give the switch voltage stresses for the pro-
to eight switches in case of the noninverting buck–boost posed and the noninverting buck–boost converters, respectively.
converter. The switch voltage stresses of two converters From (12)–(15), the voltage stress of switches normalized
in buck mode are given as follows: with output voltage Vo for two converters is plotted in terms of
voltage gain (G = Vo /Vin ), in Fig. 14.
⎧ In Fig. 14, VS x and V S x represent the switch voltage stresses
⎪ V = Vin
⎪ S 1, S 2
⎨ for the proposed and the noninverting buck–boost converters,
VS 3, S 4 = Vin − Vo (12) respectively. From this figure, it can be seen that the switches
⎪
⎪
⎩ S1 ,S2 ,S5 and S6 of the proposed converter have same voltage
VS 5, S 6 = Vo stress as that of the noninverting buck–boost converter, while
⎧
⎪  the switches S3 and S4 have lower voltage stress.
⎨ VS 1, S 2,S 3,S 4 = Vin
 (13)
⎪
⎩ VS 6, S 7 = Vo IV. PARAMETER DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED
AC–AC CONVERTER
A. Design for Noninverting Buck–Boost Operation
where (12) and (13) give the switch voltage stresses for
the proposed and the noninverting buck–boost converters, The current and voltage stresses of the components in the
respectively. proposed converter are given in Table I. In this section, the
4248 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 6, JUNE 2016

TABLE II
ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED AC–AC CONVERTER

Output voltage 110 VRMS/60 Hz

Input voltage (Buck mode) 150 Vrms/60 Hz
Input voltage (Boost mode) 70 VRMS/60 Hz
Output power 300 W
Switching frequency 25 kHz
MOSFET ( S1 − S6 ) 47N60CFD
Diode ( D 1 − D 6 ) RHRG3060
Inductor ( L ) Core PQ5050
No. of turns 50 T
Inductance 800 μH
Input capacitor (C i n ) 1.5 μF
Output capacitor ( C o ) 4.5 μF

design parameters of inductor and switches will be determined

based on maximum values of their stresses for noninverting
buck–boost operation.
1) The design parameters of inductor L depend on its max- Fig. 15. Experimental results of the proposed ac–ac converter under nonin-
imum current handling capability and allowable current verting buck mode operation for V o = 110 V rm s , and D = 0.73. (a) Input
ripple. For a fixed output powerPo , the maximum cur- voltage, output voltage and current waveforms. (b) High frequency switches
voltage stress and inductor current waveforms. (c) Zoom-in waveforms of (b).
rent IL ,m ax flows through inductor (ignoring ripple) dur-
ing boost operation when input voltage has lowest value
Vin,m in
Po
IL ,m ax = . (16)
Vin,m in
Now, consider the maximum allowable inductor cur-
rent ripple ΔiL ,m ax is chosen such that ΔiL ,m ax
≤ x% IL ,m ax , then the inductor value L required to main-
tain this ripple is given by using ΔiL value from Table I
(for noninverting boost operation) and (16) as
⎧
⎪ Vo
⎪
⎨ L ≥ x%I (D − D2 )T
L ,m ax
(17)
⎪
⎪
⎩ L ≥ Vo Vin,m in (D − D2 )T.
x%Po
By using (16) and (17), the maximum inductor current
iL ,m ax while considering its current ripple can be found
as
Po Vo
iL ,m ax = + (D − D2 )T. (18)
Vin,m in 2L
Fig. 16. Experimental results of the proposed ac–ac converter under nonin-
2) All the six active switches and their series diodes have verting boost mode operation for V o = 110 V rm s , and D = 0.36. (a) Input
the same voltage and current ratings. The inductor current voltage, output voltage and current waveforms. (b) High frequency switches
also flows through all the switches S1 − S6 and therefore, voltage stress and inductor current waveforms. (c) Zoom-in waveforms of (b).
the maximum current stress of all switches is the same as
inductor current and can be found by (18). operation. The voltage stress of S3 , S4 is always (Vo − Vin )
The voltage stresses of the switches for noninverting buck– which is maximum when either Vin is minimum or maximum.
boost modes are given in Table I, where the negative sign shows
that the voltage is blocked by series diode of switch. As Vo is
B. Design for Inverting Buck–Boost Operation
usually fixed, the voltage stress of switches S5 , S6 is Vo which
is always same. The voltage stress of S1 , S2 is always Vin and As mentioned before, the inverting buck–boost operation of
it will have a maximum value Vin,m ax during noninverting buck the proposed converter is also interesting for its application as
AHMED et al.: NOVEL BUCK–BOOST AC–AC CONVERTER WITH BOTH INVERTING AND NONINVERTING OPERATIONS 4249

Fig. 19. Prototype picture.

buck–boost operation) and (19) as

Fig. 17. Experimental results of the proposed ac–ac converter under inverting ⎧
buck mode operation for V o = 110 V rm s , and D = 0.42. (a) Input voltage, ⎪
⎪
Vo
output voltage and current waveforms. (b) High frequency switches voltage ⎨ L ≥ y%IL ,m ax (1 − D)T
⎪
stress and inductor current waveforms. (c) Zoom-in waveforms of (b). (20)
⎪
⎪ Vo2 Vin,m in
⎪
⎩L ≥ (1 − D)T.
(Vo + Vin ,m in )y%Po
By using (19) and (20), the maximum inductor current
iL ,m ax while considering its current ripple can be found
as follows:

1 1 Vo
iL ,m ax = Po + + (1 − D)T. (21)
Vin,m in Vo 2L
2) The inductor current also flows through all switches, and
therefore, maximum switch current stress can be deter-
mine by using (21). The maximum voltage stresses of
switches S1 , S2 and S5 , S6 are Vin,m ax and Vo , respec-
tively, which are the same as that in noninverting buck–
boost operating modes. However, maximum voltage stress
Fig. 18. Experimental results of the proposed ac–ac converter for noninverting of switches S5 , S6 is(Vin + Vo ), which is maximum for
boost mode operation under RL load, when R = 40 Ω, L = 30 mH. buck operation when Vin has maximum value.

DVR. In this section, the design parameters for inductor and
switches are given in this operating mode.
1) Same as in noninverting operation, the maximum cur-
rent IL ,m ax (ignoring current ripple) in inverting operation
flows through inductor when input voltage has minimum
value Vin,m in
 voltageVin , output voltage Vo , and output current of the proposed
1 1
IL ,m ax = Po + .
Vin,m in Vo
Now, consider the maximum allowable inductor current
ripple ΔiL ,m ax is chosen such that ΔiL ,m ax ≤ y%IL ,m ax ,
then the inductor value L required to maintain this ripple
is given by using ΔiL value from Table I (for inverting
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Based on the previous analysis, a 300-W prototype ac–ac con-
verter was built and tested. Table II shows the electrical specifi-
cations of the proposed converter. Figs. 15–17 show experimen-
tal results of the proposed ac–ac converter for noninverting buck
and boost modes and inverting buck modes, respectively, for
Vo = 110 Vrm s and Po = 300 W. Figs. 15–17(a) show the input
converter for the three operating modes. Figs. 15–17(b) show
(19)
the drain to source voltage stress of high frequency switches
and inductor current waveforms in each operating mode while
Figs. 15–17(c) show their zoom-in waveforms. Fig. 18 shows
the operation of the proposed converter in boost mode under RL
load with R = 40 Ω and L = 30 mH. The prototype picture of
the proposed converter is shown in Fig. 19.
4250
Fig. 20. Measured voltage gain for noninverting buck and boost modes.
Fig. 21. Measured efficiency of the proposed ac–ac converter.
Figs. 20 and 21 show, respectively, the measured voltage gain
and efficiency of the proposed converter when Vo = 110 Vrm s
and Po = 300 W, while Vin and D are varied. From these
figures, it can be seen that the measure voltage gain is more
close to theoretical value with higher efficiency for buck mode.
While in boost mode, the measured voltage gain and efficiency
decrease as the input voltage decreases. This is because the each
current loop in the proposed converter contains three MOSFETs,
three diodes, and ESR of inductor, which leads to higher on con-
duction losses of MOSFETs, forward drop of diodes, and ESR
loss of inductor, respectively, as the input current increases in
boost mode with decrease in input voltage.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a single-phase PWM ac–ac converter has been
proposed which combined the operation of noninverting buck
and boost converters and inverting buck–boost converter in one
topology. The proposed converter uses six unidirectional current
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 6, JUNE 2016
flowing bidirectional voltage blocking switches, two capacitors,
and one inductor. The proposed converter has no shoot-through
problem even when all switches are turned on simultaneously,
and therefore, can eliminate PWM dead-times to produce high
quality output voltage. Furthermore, the proposed converter can
solve commutation problem without using bulky and lossy RC
snubbers or dedicated soft commutation strategy. In the pro-
posed converter, only two switches are switched at high fre-
quency during each half-cycle, which reduces the switching
losses. Moreover, since body diode of switches never conducts
the proposed converter can use power MOSFETs, which bene-
fits in low switching loss, resistive conduction voltage drop, fast
switching speed, etc.
The proposed converter can operate in noninverting buck and
boost modes to replace the inverting buck–boost ac–ac converter
with following benefits; decreased switch voltage stresses, in-
ductor current and current ripple, increased reliability because
of no commutation problem, and no need of PWM dead-times.
In its application as DVR, the inverting buck–boost mode of the
proposed converter can also be utilized along with noninverting
buck and boost modes, to compensate both voltage sags and
swells. A detailed analysis of the proposed converter has been
presented, and validated by experimental results.
REFERENCES
[1] M. K. Nguyen, Y. G. Jung, and Y. C. Lim, “Single-phase ac–ac converter
based on quasi-Z-source topology,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25,
no. 8, pp. 2200–2210, Aug. 2010.
[2] C. Liu, B. Wu, N. R. Zargari, D. Xu, and J. Wang, “A novel three-phase
three-leg ac-ac converter using nine IGBTs,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1151–1160, May 2009.
[3] C. B. Jacobina, I. S. D. Freitas, E. R. C. D. Silva, A. M. N. Lima, and
R. L. D. A. Riberio, “Reduced switch count dc-link ac-ac five-leg con-
verter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1301–1310, Sep.
2006.
[4] P. Alemi, Y.-C. Jeung, and D.-C. Lee, “Dc-link capacitance minimiza-
tion in T-type three-level ac/dc/ac PWM converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1382–1391, Mar. 2015.
[5] A. Ecklebe, A. Lindemann, and S. Schulz, “Bidirectional switch com-
mutation for a matrix converter supplying a series resonant load,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1173–1181, May 2009.
[6] R. Cardenas, C. Juri, R. Pena, P. Wheeler, and J. Clare, “The applica-
tion of resonant controllers to four-leg matrix converters feeding unbal-
anced or nonlinear loads,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 3,
pp. 1120–1129, Mar. 2012.
[7] B. Metidji, N. Taib, L. Baghli, T. Rekioua, and S. Bacha, “Novel single
current sensor topology for venturini controlled direct matrix converters,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 3509–3516, Jul. 2013.
[8] C. Xia, J. Zhao, Y. Yan, and T. Shi, “Novel single current sensor topology
for venturini controlled direct matrix converters,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 5417–5430, Oct. 2014.
[9] B. Ge, Q. Lei, W. Qian, and F. Z. Peng, “A family of Z-source matrix
converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 35–46, Jan.
2014.
[10] F. Z. Peng, L. Chen, and F. Zhang, “Simple topologies of PWM ac-ac
converters,” IEEE Power Electron. Lett., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 10–13, Mar.
2003.
[11] H. Sarnago, O. Lucia, A. Mediano, and J. M. Burdioo, “Direct ac-ac reso-
nant boost converter for efficient domestic induction heating applications,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1128–1139, Mar. 2014.
[12] J.-H. Kim, B.-D. Min, B.-H. Kwon, and S.-C. Won, “A PWM buck-boost
ac chopper solving the commutation problem,” IEEE Ind. Electron. Lett.,
vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 832–835, Oct. 1998.
[13] L. G. D. Vicuna, M. Castilla, J. Miret, J. Matas, and J. M. Guerrero,
“Sliding-mode control for a single-phase ac/ac quantum resonant con-
verter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 35–46, Sep. 2009.
AHMED et al.: NOVEL BUCK–BOOST AC–AC CONVERTER WITH BOTH INVERTING AND NONINVERTING OPERATIONS
[14] R. Moghe, R. P. Kandula, A. Iyer, and D. Divan, “Losses in medium-
voltage megawatt-rated direct ac/ac power electronics converters,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 3553–3562, Jul. 2015.
[15] L. Li and Q. Zhong, “Novel zeta-mode three-level ac direct converter,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 897–903, Feb. 2012.
[16] X. P. Fang, Z. M. Qian, and F. Z. Peng, “Single-phase Z-source PWM
ac-ac converters,” IEEE Power Electron. Lett., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 121–124,
Dec. 2005.
[17] M.-K. Nguyen, Y.-C. Lim, and Y.-J. Kim, “A modified single-phase quasi-
Z-source ac-ac converter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 1,
pp. 201–210, Jan. 2012.
[18] M. R. Banaei, R. Alizadeh, N. Jahanyari, and E. S. Najmi, “An ac
Z-source converter based on gamma structure with safe-commutation
strategy,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., to be published, DOI
10.1109/TPEL.2015.2415735.
[19] Y. Tang, S. Xie, and C. Zhang, “Z-source ac-ac converters solving
commutation problem,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 6,
pp. 2146–2154, Nov. 2007.
[20] L. He, S. Duan, and F. Z. Peng, “Safe-commutation strategy for the novel
family of quasi-Z-source ac-ac converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.,
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1538–1547, Aug. 2013.
[21] R. Stala, S. Pirog, M. Baszynski, A. Mondzik, A. Penczek, J. Czekonski,
and S. Gasiorek, “Results of investigation of multicell converters with
balancing circuit—Part I,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 7,
pp. 2610–2619, Jul. 2009.
[22] R. Stala, S. Pirog, A. Mondzik, M. Baszynski, A. Penczek, J. Czekonski,
and S. Gasiorek, “Results of investigation of multicell converters with
balancing circuit—Part II,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 7,
pp. 2610–2619, Jul. 2009.
[23] R. H. Wilkinson, T. A. Meynard, and H. D. T. Mouton, “Natural balance
of multicell converters: The general case,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1658–1666, Nov. 2006.
[24] H.-H. Shin, H. Cha, H.-G. Kim, and D.-W. Yoo, “Novel single-phase
ac-ac converters solving commutation problem using switching cell struc-
ture and coupled inductor,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 4,
pp. 2137–2147, Apr. 2015.
[25] J. Cheng, T. Sun, and A. Wang, “Highly compact ac-ac converter achieving
a high voltage transfer ratio,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 49, no. 2,
pp. 345–352, Apr. 2002.
[26] T. B. Soeiro, C. A. Petry, J. C. d. S. Fagundes, and I. Barbi, “Direct ac-ac
converters using commercial power modules applied to voltage restorers,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 278–288, Jan. 2011.
[27] T. B. Lazzarin, R. L. Andersen, and I. Barbi, “A switched-capacitor
three-phase ac-ac converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 2,
pp. 735–745, Feb. 2015.
[28] L. Li and D. Tang, “Cascaded three-level ac/ac direct converter,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 27–34, Jan. 2012.
[29] Y. Zhang and X. Ruan, “AC-AC converter with controllable phase and
amplitude,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 6235–6244,
Nov. 2014.
[30] Y. Zhang and X. Ruan, “Three-phase ac-ac converter with control-
lable phase and amplitude,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 9,
pp. 5689–5699, Sep. 2015.
[31] F. L. Luo and H. Ye, “Research on dc-modulated power factor correction
ac/ac converters,” in Proc. IEEE Annu. Conf. Ind. Electron. Soc., 2007,
pp. 1478–1483.
[32] C. Chapelsky, J. Salmon, and A. M. Knight, “High-quality single-phase
power conversion by considering the magnetic components in the output
stage- building a better half-bridge,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 45,
no. 6, pp. 2048–2055, Nov./Dec. 2009.
[33] J. Salmon, J. Ewanchuk, and A. M. Knight, “PWM inverters using
split-wound coupled inductors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 45, no. 6,
pp. 2001–2009, Nov./Dec. 2009.
[34] J. Salmon, A. M. Knight, and J. Ewanchuk, “Single-phase multilevel
PWM inverter topologies using coupled inductors,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1259–1266, May 2009.
[35] C. Liu, P. Sun, J.-S. Lai, Y. Ji, M. Wang, C.-L. Chen, and G. Cai, “Cas-
caded dual-boost/buck active-front-end converter for intelligent universal
transfer,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 4671–4680, Dec.
2012.
[36] P. Sun, C. Liu, J.-S. Lai, C.-L. Chen, and N. Kees, “Three-phase dual-
buck inverter with unified pulsewidth modulation,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1159–1167, Mar. 2012.
[37] B. Chen, B. Gu, L. Zhang, Z. U. Zahid, J.-S. Lai, Z. Liao, and R. Ho,
“A high-efficiency MOSFET transformerless inverter for nonisolated mi-
croinverter applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 7,
pp. 3610–3622, Jul. 2015.
4251
[38] M. K. Nguyen, Y. G. Jung, and Y. C. Lim, “Voltage swell/sag compensation
with single-phase Z-source AC/AC converter,” in Proc. 13th Eur. Conf.
Power Electron. Appl., 2009, pp. 1–8.
[39] D. M. Lee, T. G. Habetler, R. G. Harley, T. L. Keister, and J. R. Rostron, “A
voltage sag supporter utilizing a PWM-switched autotransformer,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 626–635, Mar. 2007.
[40] B. Sahu and G. A. R. Mora, “A low voltage, dynamic, noninverting,
synchronous buck-boost converter for portable applications,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 443–452, Mar. 2004.
[41] C. Yao, X. Ruan, and W. Cao, “A two-mode control scheme with in-
put voltage feed-forward for the two-switch buck-boost dc-dc converter,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 2037–2048, Apr. 2014.
[42] C.-H. Tsai, Y.-S. Tsai, and H.-C. Liu, “A stable mode-transition technique
for a digitally controlled non-inverting buck-boost dc-dc converter,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 475–483, Jan. 2015.
[43] H. Sarnago, O. Lucia, A. Mediano, and J. M. Burdio, “Modulation scheme
for improved operation of an RB-IGBT-based resonant inverter applied to
domestic induction heating,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 5,
pp. 2066–2073, May 2013.
Hafiz Furqan Ahmed received the B.S. degree in
electronics engineering from the National University
of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan, in
2012, and is currently working toward the M.S. de-
gree in the School of Energy Engineering, Kyung-
pook National University, Daegu, South Korea, where
he will be working toward the Ph.D. degree in future.
His current research interests include high effi-
ciency bidirectional dc–dc converters, Z-source in-
verters, and high reliable ac–ac converters without
commutation problem.
Honnyong Cha (S’08–M’10) received the B.S. and
M.S. degrees in electronics engineering from Kyung-
pook National University, Daegu, South Korea, in
1999 and 2001, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from Michigan State Univer-
sity, East Lansing, MI, USA, in 2009.
From 2001 to 2003, he was a Research Engineer
with the Power System Technology (PSTEK) Com-
pany, Ansan, South Korea. From 2010 to 2011, he
was a Senior Researcher at the Korea Electrotechnol-
ogy Research Institute, Changwon, South Korea. In
2011, he joined Kyungpook National University as an Assistant Professor in the
School of Energy Engineering. His current research interests include high power
dc–dc converters, dc–ac inverters, Z-source inverters, and power conversion for
electric vehicles and wind power generation.
Ashraf Ali Khan received the B.E. degree in elec-
tronics engineering from the National University of
Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan, in
2012, and is currently working toward the M.S. de-
gree in the School of Energy Engineering, Kyung-
pook National University, Daegu, South Korea, where
he will be working toward the Ph.D. degree in future.
His current research interests include magnetics,
buck–boost inverters, solid-state transformer and ac–
ac converters.
Heung-Geun Kim (S’82–M’88–SM’12) was born in
South Korea in 1956. He received the B.S., M.S., and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Seoul
National University, Seoul, South Korea, in 1980,
1982 and 1988, respectively.
Since 1984, he has been with the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Kyungpook National Univer-
sity, Daegu, South Korea, where he is currently a Full
Professor and the Director of the Microgrid Research
Center. He was a Visiting Scholar in the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University
of Wisconsin-Madison from 1990 to 1991, and in the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Michigan State University, USA, from 2006 to 2007. His current
research interests include ac machine control, photovoltaic power generation,
and microgrid system.