2K I%lt s
HAC(S)= K, + 2 (15)
s2 + 2 w m t s + o o
where a , = integrator low frequency cutoff. H A C ( s )has a
frequency response characteristic as shown in Figure 3. The
realisation and performance implications of this practical
network have been discussed in an earlier paper [7].
The advantage of this approach is that the resultant
controller requires much less signal processing and so is less
sensitive to noise. Furthermore, the application of this
technique to single phase systems is straightforward and
undifferentiated from its application to three phase systems.
But the approach does have the complication for variable
frequency applications that the resonant frequency of the AC
compensator must be shifted in accordance with the required
output fundamental. However, this is not a major issue for a
digital implementation, particularly if the magnitude
response is broadened by reducing the resonant circuit Q as
discussed in [7].
B. Extension to Three Phase Current Regulation
The new resonant regulator can be directly applied to a
three phase system with no neutral connection by recognising
that for a linear system in the stationary frame, two
independent regulators in either the ABC or the DQ reference
frame are all that are required (ie. just like a conventional
stationary frame PI current control system).
For such systems the single phase regulator can be used for
three phase systems by regulating two of the three line
currents of the converter, as illustrated in Figure 4. The
validity of this can be verified by considering a balanced
three phase system in state variable form.
By loop analysis and Kirchoff s current law:
di ( t )
- vb(t)+v, (t)- 2i, (t)R- 2 ~ - - - i , ( t ) R - L-' di ( t ) = O (16)
dt dt
10' 1o?
Frequency (rad/sec)
IO' lo2 loJ
Frequency(radlsc)
Figure 3: Bode Plot of AC Compensator from Equation (15).
K,=10, K, = 1.f. = 50 Hz, O, = 10 Hz
di,(t) t., ( t ) R - Ldif - =( tO
) (17)
-vb(t)+vc(t)-2iC(t)R-~~--
dt dt
Rearranging (16) and (17) gives: - , .-
If C v i ( i ) =o then,
d io(t) 1 -R 0 i,(t) 1 0 v,(t)
z [ i , ( t d = y [ 0 R][i,(t)l+[O - J [ v , ( t d (I9)
Hence, each of the two line currents are independently
determined by their phase voltage, and the same transfer
function gains as used in a single phase system can be used to
achieve the same transient and steady state response.
One limitation with this scheme that was observed in
simulation is that when the VSI saturates, exponentially
decaying transients occur, which typically last a cycle or two.
Anti-integral-wind-up logic eliminates these transients, but
more research is required to fully understand this effect.
Iv. COMPARISON OF VARIOUS CURRENT REGULATORS
A. Comparison of Stationary and Synchronous Frame
Current Regulators in the Frequency Domain
The transformations developed in Section 2 can now be
used to compare a stationary regulator, a synchronous
regulator and the new resonant regulator in the frequency
domain, to see how their transfer functions differ in a
common reference frame. This comparison provides useful
insights as to why a synchronous reference frame regulator is
1o4
superior to a stationary frame regulator, and provides a basis
for determining how a stationary frame regulator with zero
steady state error can be achieved.
Using transformations (7a) and (7b), the frequency domain
transfer functions of a stationary frame PI, synchronous
frame PI and the new resonant stationary frame regulator can
be expressed in both the stationary and synchronous frames
as shown in Table 1. These expressions show why a
stationary frame PI regulator can never achieve zero error,
1oJ since its transformed control function in the synchronous
frame does not have an integral term. In contrast, the new
resonant regulator does transform to include a synchronous
820