IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO.
7, JULY 2016
Stability Analysis of Vector-Controlled Modular
Multilevel Converters in Linear
Time-Periodic Framework
Nilanjan Ray Chaudhuri, Member, IEEE, Rafael Oliveira, and Amirnaser Yazdani, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Stability analysis of average value models (AVMs) of
vector-controlled modular multilevel converters (MMCs) is the
subject matter of this paper. Stability analysis of fundamental
frequency phasor-based AVMs of MMCs can be conducted in a
traditional linear time-invariant framework through eigenvalue
computation. This class of models does not consider circulating
current control loop and hence fails to capture system instability
that occurs in a certain range of gains of the circulating current con-
troller. We propose stability analysis in a linear time-periodic (LTP)
framework to solve this issue. To that end, a nonlinear AVM is pre-
sented that considers the submodule capacitor insertion dynamics
and takes into account the output and the circulating current con-
trol schemes in the vector control approach. Upon linearization,
an LTP model is derived from this averaged model. It is shown
that the Poincaré multipliers are indicative of system instability
corresponding to a certain range of gains of the circulating current
controller.
Index Terms—Linear time periodic (LTP), linear time
varying (LTV), modular multilevel converter (MMC), stability,
state transition matrix (STM).
I. INTRODUCTION
HE modular multilevel converter (MMC) has gained im-
T mense popularity since it was invented [1], [2]. The focus
of this paper is on the stability analysis of average value models
(AVMs) of MMCs. It presents a comprehensive stability anal-
ysis framework for MMCs under closed-loop control that takes
into account the circulating current control loops and the output
current control loops. As an example, vector control, which is
popular in the industry, is considered as the control methodol-
ogy. The proposed analytical approach is critical in developing
insight into the zones of stability of MMC controller gains and,
therefore, can have significant theoretical and practical impor-
tance.
Literature review shows that a lot of attention has been fo-
cused on the modeling and control of MMCs [3]–[30]. On the
Manuscript received June 5, 2015; revised August 12, 2015; accepted Septem-
ber 17, 2015. Date of publication September 22, 2015; date of current version
January 28, 2016. This work was supported by NSF ND EPSCoR New Fac-
ulty Startup Grant (Award # FAR0021960). Recommended for publication by
Associate Editor M. Hagiwara.
N. R. Chaudhuri is with the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108 USA (e-mail:
nilanjanray.chaudhur@ndsu.edu).
R. Oliveira and A. Yazdani are with the Department of Electrical and Com-
puter Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3 Canada (e-mail:
rafael.oliveira@ryerson.ca; yazdani@ryerson.ca).
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.2015.2480845
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.
5255
contrary, only a few papers [31]–[34] presented stability anal-
ysis framework of the MMC. We divide the literature into two
parts: 1) papers that presented only modeling and control phi-
losophy; and 2) papers that presented stability analysis. In the
following sections, we will conduct a comprehensive review of
this literature in order to distinguish our contribution.
A. Literature on MMC Modeling and Control
Yang et al. [3] proposed a model to represent the circulating
current in the MMC. The paper did not include the controllers
in their model and did not present any framework for stabil-
ity analysis. Kolb et al. [4] focused on a novel control strategy
for MMCs, which allows feeding a three-phase machine over its
complete frequency range. Two operating modes were proposed
in this paper: a low-frequency mode for startup and low-speed
operation, and a high-frequency mode for higher speeds. The
same authors proposed a cascaded control system for MMCs for
variable-speed drives [5]. The decoupled current control strat-
egy proposed in this paper transforms the abc frame quantities
into αβ0 quantities for the phase currents and the circulating
currents (referred as “e” currents). The proposed control sys-
tem ensures a dynamic balancing of the energies in the MMC
cells at minimum internal currents over the complete frequency
range. However, none of these papers presented a comprehen-
sive modeling framework that can be used for stability analysis
of MMCs. Munch et al. [6] wrote a very important paper that
showed that MMC can be modeled as a periodic bilinear time-
varying system capturing all currents and energies. It assumed
that the submodule (SM) capacitor voltages are balanced and
focused on horizontal and vertical energy balancing among the
group of phase modules. The state-space model, although in-
sightful, leads to a control design that requires a p-periodic lin-
ear quadratic regulator, which possesses periodic time-varying
gains. No obvious advantage was established over the existing
constant gain controllers that are more popular due to their sim-
plicity. Moreover, the paper did not offer any insight into the
stability analysis using such models. Munch et al. [7] proposed
a linear time-invariant (LTI) state-apace model of the MMC,
which is not adequate to analyze the interaction between the
circulating current control and output current control loops.
Siemaszko et al. [8] presented a comparison between four
modulation strategies in MMCs. These strategies are: direct
modulation, closed-loop control, open-loop control, and phase-
shifted carrier-based pulse-width modulation. Similar analysis
was also reported in [9]. A fundamental-frequency control of the
circulating current of the MMC was proposed in [10]. Although
5256 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 7, JULY 2016

these three papers focus on different control methodologies of bility analysis. In [32] and [33], the authors studied the stability
MMC, they do not present any modeling and stability analy- of the MMC as an open-loop system. They made multiple sim-
sis. A nonlinear switching function-based model of MMC was plifying assumptions to convert the linear time-varying (LTV)
presented in [11], which was used for time-domain simulation. model into an LTI model. Hagiwara et al. [34] used Routh–
Perez et al. presented a model of the MMC based on switching Hurwitz stability criterion for conducting stability analysis of
function-driven controllable voltage sources in [12] and pro- one arm of the MMC converter, where only the circulating cur-
posed a vector control strategy in [13] for output current con- rent was considered as the state variable.
trol, circulating current control, and average dc voltage control.
Unfortunately, due to the switched nature of the model, it is not C. Motivation, Contribution, and Application of this paper
straightforward to do stability analysis. Yan et al. [14] presented
In view of the above literature review, it is clear that:
an averaged model in rotating dq reference frame. The model is
1) papers that presented stability analysis of MMCs either
oversimplified and does not consider circulating current. Engel
modeled systems under open-loop conditions or made
and De Doncker [15] proposed the reduction of cell capacitance
quite a few simplifying assumptions to avoid complex-
by injecting harmonic current in the circulating current. Rohner
ities of a rigorous stability analysis;
et al. [16], [17] presented a nonlinear time-varying state-space
2) a modeling framework of MMCs considering closed-loop
AVM of MMCs. The model described in [17] is of particular
control, which is suitable for stability analysis, has not
interest and has some similarities with the model developed in
been presented;
this paper. The key difference, however, is that, in this paper, the
3) an analytical method for rigorous stability study is neces-
closed-loop control is also considered within the model. More
sary. It will be shown in this paper that traditional eigen-
importantly, an approach for stability analysis has also been
value analysis fails to detect the regions of instability of
presented in our paper, which was not done in [17]. Many other
MMCs under closed-loop control.
papers including [18]–[26] also focused on modeling and con-
The AVM introduced in this paper, while complex, consid-
trol of MMCs without considering any framework for stability
ers the closed-loop control system in the modeling framework.
analysis. Teeuwsen [27] presented a positive-sequence funda-
Moreover, it presents a rigorous stability analysis approach with-
mental frequency model of MMCs for phasor simulation with
out simplifying assumptions.
large ac systems. This model cannot capture the circulating cur-
The key contributions of this paper are as follows:
rent and corresponding control loops. A fundamental frequency
1) it presents a comprehensive modeling framework that aug-
AVM, called the Type 6 model, was reported in [28] and [29].
ments the AVM that considers SM insertion dynamics
These models can also be used for phasor-based simulations.
with widely used vectorial control for the output current
In this paper, we shall call such models “phasor-based AVMs.”
control loop and the circulating current control loop;
Phasor-based AVMs neglect the dynamics of the SM capaci-
2) it proposes a stability analysis methodology of MMCs in
tors and, therefore, do not capture the circulating current. Upon
a linear time-periodic (LTP) framework;
linearization, this class of models can be treated as LTI and
3) it demonstrates through case studies that the proposed
traditional eigenvalue analysis can be performed to ascertain
approach can indicate a range of compensator gains of the
stability. We will demonstrate that there are different regions of
circulating current control scheme which can destabilize
gains of the circulating current controller that can destabilize
the MMC.
the MMC. Since the phasor-based AVMs do not consider the
The proposed analytical approach is critical in developing
circulating current control loop, it cannot indicate such insta-
insight into the zones of stability of MMC controller gains and,
bility. The objective of this study is to present a modeling and
therefore, can have significant theoretical and practical impor-
stability analysis framework that solves this problem.
tance. It should be mentioned that the proposed technique is
It is important to note that the operating principle of MMCs
applicable for any control philosophy (not limited to vector
is fundamentally different from other voltage source converter
control), as long as the closed-loop system can be represented
(VSC) topologies. Unlike the conventional VSC topologies
in the form of an LTP model.
(e.g., two- or three-level), the MMC operates based on phys-
ical modification of its circuit, i.e., insertion and bypassing of
its SMs in a discrete manner. The AVM presented in [30] approx- II. OVERVIEW OF THE MMC CONTROL SYSTEM
imates the SM insertion and bypassing as a continuous function Fig. 1 shows a circuit diagram of the jth phase of an MMC.
and, thus, captures the circulating currents flowing through the The MMC is connected to the host ac system through a trans-
arms. former represented by its series resistance and leakage induc-
tance. The MMC control system has three key functionalities:
B. Literature on Stability Analysis of MMC 1) Balancing control: The capacitor voltages across all SMs
Although a lot of work has been done on the modeling and shown in Fig. 1 must be balanced and kept equal. Different
control aspect of MMCs, very little has been reported on estab- voltage balancing techniques have been proposed in the
lishing a comprehensive stability analysis framework of MMCs literature, e.g., [35]–[42].
that considers closed-loop control, e.g., vector control approach. 2) Circulating current control: Second harmonic circulating
The global asymptotic stability of MMCs was analyzed in [31], current originates from unbalance in the arm voltages.
which did not consider any closed-loop control strategy for sta- This distorts the arm current and increases the dc voltage
CHAUDHURI et al.: STABILITY ANALYSIS OF VECTOR-CONTROLLED MMCs IN LTP FRAMEWORK 5257

Fig. 1. Schematic of the jth phase (j = a, b, c) of the MMC.

Fig. 2. Current control scheme of the MMC in a rotating dq frame of reference.

ripple in SMs. Studies [43]–[48] are a few papers from the

vast literature in this area that have proposed circulating dq reference frame, one can write
current control strategies.
did
3) Output current control: The output current or phase cur- L = −R id + L ωiq + ed − vgd
rents are not affected by the circulating current and can be dt
controlled by decoupled current control approach. diq
L = −R iq − L ωid + eq − vgq (3)
Throughout this paper, it is assumed that the voltages across dt
all the SMs are balanced and the dc-side voltage vdc is constant. v2d − v1d v2q − v1q
where ed = , eq = . We consider widely
2 2
III. PHASOR-BASED AVM OF MMC used vector control strategy for the output current control loop,
The phasor-based AVM [28] is derived with the following which is described next.
assumptions:
1) SM capacitor insertion dynamics is neglected; A. Vector Control: Output Current Control Scheme
2) second harmonic circulating current is completely sup- A VSC is commonly current-controlled through a vectorial
pressed; control strategy in a rotating dq reference frame [49]. Fig. 2
3) the model is derived in a synchronously rotating dq ref- shows the current control scheme of the MMC in the dq frame
erence frame assuming no harmonic content in the arm with the decoupling feed-forward signals. A phase-locked loop
voltages v1j and v2j . ensures that the d-axis of the rotating dq reference frame is
From Fig. 1, applying KCL in phase j, one obtains aligned with the grid voltage vector vg .
ij As Fig. 2 indicates, the reference voltage commands in the
+ idiffj
i1j =
2 dq frame are given by
ij  ∗  ∗    
i2j = − + idiffj . (1) ed id id xd1
2 = Kp − Kp + KI
Applying Kirchhoff’s voltage law in phase j, one obtains e∗q i∗q iq xq 1
   
didiffj −iq vgd
vdc − v1j − v2j = 2L + 2Ridiffj +ωL + (4)
dt id vgq
v2j v1j dij
− − vg j = L + R i1j (2) where xd1 and xq 1 are the state variables of the proportional-
2 2 dt
integral (PI) compensators in the dq frame. The d- and q-axis
L R
where L = Lt + , and R = Rt + . As shown in Fig. 1, components of the ac grid voltage vector vg and those of the
2 2
v1j and v2j are the voltages across the upper and the lower arm current i are denoted by vgd , vgq , id , and iq , respectively. The
SMs that are in on-state. state-space equations of the PI compensators can be written as
As mentioned before, the second harmonic component of the    ∗  
ẋd1 id id
circulating current is assumed to be perfectly suppressed. Ex- = − . (5)
pressing the second equation of (2) in a synchronously rotating ∗
ẋq 1 iq iq
5258 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 7, JULY 2016

It is assumed that the converter delay is negligible and the fol- C C

by for the upper arm and for the lower arm. The
lowing control law as described in [43] is considered: N ηU∗ j N ηL∗ j
v2d − v1d v2q − v1q capacitor voltage dynamics of the upper and the lower arm SMs
ed = e∗d = , eq = e∗q = . (6) of phase j can be written as
2 2
C dvU j
B. State-Space Model of Phasor-Based AVM = i1j
N ηU∗ j dt
Combining (3)–(6), one can write the phasor-based AVM in
the following state-space form: C dvL j
= i2j (8)
⎡ ⎤ N ηL∗ j dt
⎡ ⎤ Kp + R  KI ⎡ ⎤
i̇d ⎢ − 
0 
0 ⎥ id
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ L L ⎥⎢ ⎥ where vU j and vL j are the voltages across all SMs in the upper
⎢ i̇q ⎥ ⎢ K + R 
KI ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ arm and the lower arm of the jth phase, respectively.
⎢ ⎥ ⎢0 −
p
0 ⎥ ⎢ iq ⎥
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ L 
L ⎥⎢⎥ ⎢ ⎥ In this study, the dc-side voltage vdc is assumed constant.
⎢ ẋd1 ⎥ ⎢ xd1 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎢ −1 0 0 0 ⎦ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ From (1), (2), and (8), a nonlinear AVM can be formulated for
⎣
ẋq 1 xq 1 the MMC as
0 −1 0 0

⎡K ⎤ dvU j N ij
p f1j = = + idiffj ηU∗ j (9)
0 dt C 2
⎢ L  ⎥ 

⎢ Kp ⎥
⎢0 ⎥ i∗d dvL j N ij
+⎢ ⎥ f2j = = − + idiffj ηL∗ j (10)
⎢ L ⎥ ∗ .
 (7) dt C 2
⎢1 ⎥ iq
⎣ 0 ⎦
didiffj 1 
0 1 f3j = = vdc − 2Ridiffj − ηU∗ j vU j − ηL∗ j vL j
dt 2L
It can be seen that this model has four state variables and two (11)
control variables. Next, we will discuss the stability analysis of
∗ ∗ 
dij 1 ηL j vL j ηU j vU j
the same. f4j = =  −vg j − R ij + − .
dt L 2 2

IV. STABILITY ANALYSIS: PHASOR-BASED AVM (12)

Equation (7) shows that: We shall proceed from where we left in Section III-A and de-
1) the model is LTI in nature; velop the framework for including the output current control
2) the state matrix is independent of the circulating current scheme into our model, which is described next.
controller gains.
Traditional eigenvalue computation can be performed to an- A. Vector Control: Output Current Control Scheme
alyze the stability of this system. Clearly, any instability caused
Continuing from where we were in Section III-A, let the ac
by the circulating current controller will not be captured. In
system phase voltages be
Section VII, we will do eigenvalue analysis for a test system to
highlight this point. vga = Vgm cos ωt
This sets up the motivation for developing a comprehensive

modeling and stability analysis framework that will be able to 2π
vgb = Vgm cos ωt −
solve such issues. 3


4π
V. PROPOSED AVM OF MMC CONSIDERING SM vgc = Vgm cos ωt − . (13)
3
INSERTION DYNAMICS
Assuming ρ = ωt, the reference voltage corresponding to
Unlike the phasor-based AVM, the insertion of SM capac-
phase a can be derived as
itances was considered in this model, as proposed in [30]. In
  T
practice, the change in the total capacitance of one arm of the e∗a = cos ρ − sin ρ e∗d e∗q . (14)
converter shown in Fig. 1 will happen in a discrete manner. As  
the number of SMs increase, this variation can be approximated Premultiplying (4) by cos ρ − sin ρ , we get
using a continuous function.  
Let ηU∗ j and ηL∗ j denote the fractions of the total number of e∗a = Kp i∗d cos ρ − i∗q sin ρ − Kp ia + KI xa1 + vga
SMs in the upper and the lower arm of phase j, which are in − ωL {id sin ρ + iq cos ρ} (15)
on-state. Variables ηU∗ j and ηL∗ j are control commands, which
are obtained from the output current control scheme and the  T
where xa1 = [ cos ρ − sin ρ ] xd1 xq 1 . We assume that no
circulating current control scheme. Since C is the capacitance zero-sequence current can flow in the system, i.e.,
of each SM and N is the total number of SMs in each arm,
the equivalent capacitance of the modules in on-state is given ia + ib + ic = 0. (16)
CHAUDHURI et al.: STABILITY ANALYSIS OF VECTOR-CONTROLLED MMCs IN LTP FRAMEWORK 5259

With this assumption, we can write

1 1
id sin ρ + iq cos ρ = √ (ib − ic ) = √ (ia + 2ib ) . (17)
3 3
Keeping the identities of the reference input quantities i∗d and
i∗q ,one can derive the equation for e∗a as


 ωL
e∗a = Kp i∗d cos ρ − i∗q sin ρ − Kp + √ ia + KI xa1
3
2ωL
+ vga − √ ib . (18)
3
It can be observed that the voltage reference e∗a is cross-
coupled with phase b current. Fundamentally, this coupling im-
plies that the reference voltage of one phase is not only deter-
mined by the voltage, current, and PI-controller state variable
of that phase, but also by the current of the other phase.
Following similar steps, the reference voltage for phase b can
Fig. 3. Scheme for regulation of circulating current.
be derived as



∗ ∗ 2π ∗ 2π
eb = Kp id cos ρ − − iq sin ρ −
3 3

 The circulating current is controlled in a dq reference frame that

ωL 2ωL rotates with an angular speed of 2ω [43], as Fig. 3 illustrates.
− Kp − √ ib + KI xb1 + vgb + √ ia . (19)
3 3 As Fig. 3 indicates, the reference voltage commands in the
The voltage reference for phase-c can be expressed in terms dq reference frame can be written as
of those of phases a and b. Therefore, from now on, only the  ∗   ∗     
e2f d i2f d i2f d xd2
models for phases a and b will be analyzed. = Kpf ∗ − Kpf + KI f
The state-space model of the PI compensators in a syn- e∗2f q i2f q i2f q xq 2
chronously rotating dq reference frame was described in (5).  
i2f q
Transforming the dq frame quantities to phase quantities, one +2 ωL . (23)
obtains −i2f d
dxa1 ω
f5a = = − √ (xa1 + 2xb1 ) − ia Assuming ξ = 2 ωt, one can derive the corresponding voltage
dt 3 references for phase a and b as
∗
+ id cos ρ − i∗q sin ρ (20) 
e∗fa = Kpf i∗2fd cos ξ − i∗2fq sin ξ
dxb1 ω


f5b = = √ (2xa1 + xb1 ) − ib 2 ωL idc
dt 3 − Kpf + √ idiffa − + KIf xa2


 3 3
2π 2π

+i∗d cos ρ − − i∗q sin ρ − . (21) 4 ωL idc
3 3 − √ idiffb − (24)
3 3
Equations (20) and (21) will be augmented with (9)–(12) 


while formulating the nonlinear state-space model described in 4π 4π
e∗fb = Kpf i∗2fd cos ξ − − i∗2fq sin ξ −
Section V-D. 3 3
Next, we will include the circulating current controller in the


2 ωL idc
model. − Kpf − √ idiffb −
3 3


B. Vector Control: Circulating Current Control Scheme 4 ωL idc
+ KI f xb2 + √ idiffa − . (25)
The circulating current [43], idiffj , is given by 3 3
idc The state variables of the PI compensators (see Fig. 3) in the dq
idiffa = + I2f cos (2ωt + ϕ) frame are related to the corresponding phase values as
3

 ⎡ ⎤
idc 4π   cos ξ − sin ξ  
idiffb = + I2f cos 2ωt + ϕ − xa2
3 3 ⎢

 ⎥ xd2

 =⎣ 4π 4π ⎦ .
idc 2π xb2 cos ξ − − sin ξ − xq 2
idiffc = + I2f cos 2ωt + ϕ − . (22) 3 3
3 3 (26)
5260 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 7, JULY 2016

The state-space equations of the PI compensators can be writ- VI. PROPOSED STABILITY ANALYSIS: AVM CONSIDERING SM
ten as INSERTION DYNAMICS
   ∗   
ẋd2 i2fd i2fd As described in Section V-D, the state-space model is non-
= ∗ − . (27) linear in nature. To do stability analysis, we will linearize this
ẋq 2 i2fq i2fq
model around an operating point, as described next.
Transforming the dq frame quantities to a and b phase quantities,
we get

 A. Linearized State-Space Model
dxa2 2ω idc
f6a = = √ (xa2 + 2xb2 ) − idiffa −
dt 3 3 The nonlinear state-space model (33) can be linearized around
∗ a nominal operating point (x0 , u0 , z0 ), and expressed in the form
+ i2f d cos ξ − i∗2f q sin ξ (28)


dxb2 2ω idc
f6b = = − √ (2xa2 + xb2 ) − idiffb − Δẋ(t) = A(t)Δx(t) + B(t)Δu(t) + Γ(t)Δz(t),
dt 3 3


 A(t) ∈ n ×n , B(t) ∈ n ×m , Γ(t) ∈ n ×p
∗ 4π ∗ 4π
+ i2f d cos ξ − − i2f q sin ξ − .   
3 3 ∂f  ∂f  ∂f 
A(t) = , B(t) = , Γ(t) = . (37)
(29) ∂x 0 ∂u 0 ∂z 0
Equations (28) and (29) will be augmented with (9)–(12),
(20), and (21) while formulating the nonlinear state-space
The subscript “0” is used to signify values at the current operat-
model.
ing condition. The nonzero elements of the matrix A(t), B(t),
and Γ(t) are given below.
C. Control Law
The control commands ηU∗ j and ηL∗ j are produced from the
control commands e∗j and e∗f j based on the relations Elements of A(t) matrix:



1 e∗j + e∗f j N ∗ 1 ia0 2 ωL
Kpf + √
ηU∗ j = − (30) A(1, 5) =
C
ηU a0 +
vdc0 2
+ idiffa0
3
2 vdc


1 e∗j − e∗f j N 4 ωL
√
ia0
ηL∗ j = + . (31) A(1, 6) =
C 3 vdc0 2
+ idiffa0
2 vdc



The following constraints need to be imposed on the control N ηU∗ a0 1 ia0 ωL
A(1, 7) = + + idiffa0 Kp + √
commands: C 2 vdc0 2 3



0 ≤ ηU∗ j ≤ 1, 0 ≤ ηL∗ j ≤ 1. (32) A(1, 8) =
N 2 ωL
√
ia0
+ idiffa0
C 3 vdc0 2
D. State-Space Model of AVM With SM Insertion Dynamics

N KI ia0
A(1, 9) = − + idiffa0
Equations (9)–(12), (20), (21), (28), and (29) constitute a C vdc0 2
nonlinear state-space model for the MMC of the form ẋ =

N KI f ia0
f (x, u, z). Variables ηU∗ j and ηL∗ j in (9)–(12) are replaced by A(1, 11) = − + idiffa0
C vdc0 2
expressions of e∗j and e∗f j as in (18), (19), (24), (25), (30), and

(31). Since there are six equations for each phase (phases a N 4 ωL ib0
A(2, 5) = − √ + idiffb0
and b), it leads to 12 state variables (x). In addition, there are C 3 vdc0 2
four control variables (u) and four algebraic variables (z). These 


N ∗ 1 ib0 2 ωL
equations are expressed in a compact form as shown below A(2, 6) = ηU b0 + + idiffb0 Kpf − √
C vdc0 2 3
ẋ = f (x, u, z) (33) 


N 2 ωL ib0
A(2, 7) = − √ + idiffb0
x = [ vUa vUb vLa vLb idiffa idiffb · · · C 3 vdc0 2



ia ib xa1 xb1 xa2 xb2 ]T (34) N ηU∗ b0 1 ib0 ωL
A(2, 8) = + + idiffb0 Kp − √
 T C 2 vdc0 2 3
u = i∗d i∗q i∗2fd i∗2fq (35)

 T N KI ib0
A(2, 10) = − + idiffb0
z = vga vgb vdc idc . (36) C vdc0 2


As mentioned before, equations for phases a and b are suffi- N KI f ib0
A(2, 12) = − + idiffb0
cient for the dynamic model, in view of the assumption (16). C vdc0 2
CHAUDHURI et al.: STABILITY ANALYSIS OF VECTOR-CONTROLLED MMCs IN LTP FRAMEWORK 5261




N 1 ia 0 2 ωL
A(3, 5) = ηL∗ a 0 + − + idiffa 0 Kp f + √ 1 KI
C vdc0 2 3 A(6, 10) = (vU b0 − vL b0 )

 2L vdc0
N 4 ωL ia 0
A(3, 6) = − √ − + idiffa 0 1 KI f
C 3 vdc0 2 A(6, 12) = (vU b0 + vL b0 )
 ∗

 2L vdc0
N η 1 ia 0 ωL
A(3, 7) = − La0 − − + idiffa 0 Kp + √ ηU∗ a0 ηL∗ a0
C 2 vdc0 2 3 A(7, 1) = − , A(7, 3) =

 2L 2L
N 2 ωL 
ia 0

A(3, 8) = − √ − + idiffa 0 1 1 2 ωL
C 3 vdc0 2 A(7, 5) =  Kpf + √ (vL a0 − vU a0 )

 L 2vdc0 3
N KI ia 0
A(3, 9) = − + idiffa 0 1 2 ωL
C vdc0 2 A(7, 6) = √ (vL a0 − vU a0 )

 L 3 vdc0
N KI f ia 0 
 
A(3, 11) = − − + idiffa 0
C vdc0 2 1 1 ωL


A(7, 7) =  −R − Kp + √ (vL a0 + vU a0 )
N 4 ωL ib 0 L 2vdc0 3
A(4, 5) = − √ − + idiffb 0 ω
C 3 vdc0 2 A(7, 8) = − √ (vL a0 + vU a0 )


 3 vdc0
N 1 ib 0 2 ωL
A(4, 6) = ηL∗ b 0 + − + idiffb 0 Kp f − √
C vdc0 2 3 1 KI

 A(7, 9) = (vL a0 + vU a0 )
N 2 ωL 
ib 0 2L vdc0
A(4, 7) = √ − + idiffb 0
C 3 vdc0 2 1 KI f
 ∗

 A(7, 11) = (−vL a0 + vU a0 )
N η 1 ib 0 ωL 2L vdc0
A(4, 8) = − L b0 − − + idiffb 0 Kp − √
C 2 vdc0 2 3 ηU∗ b0 ηL∗ b0

 A(8, 2) = − , A(8, 4) =
N KI ib 0 2L 2L
A(4, 10) = − + idiffb 0
C vdc0 2 1 2 ωL


A(8, 5) = −  √ (vL b0 − vU b0 )
N KI f ib 0 L 3 vdc0
A(4, 12) = − − + idiffb 0

C vdc0 2 1 1 2 ωL
A(8, 6) =  Kpf − √ (vL b0 − vU b0 )
ηU∗ a 0 η∗ L 2vdc0 3
A(5, 1) = − , A(5, 3) = − L a 0
2L 2L ω

  A(8, 7) = √ (vL b0 + vU b0 )
1 1 2 ωL 3 vdc0
A(5, 5) = −R − Kp f + √ (vU a 0 + vL a 0 ) 
 
L 2vdc0 3 1 1 ωL
2ω A(8, 8) =  −R − Kp − √ (vL b0 + vU b0 )
A(5, 6) = − √ (vU a 0 + vL a 0 ) L 2vdc0 3
3 vdc0

 1 KI
1 1 ωL A(8, 10) = (vL b0 + vU b0 )
A(5, 7) = Kp + √ (−vU a 0 + vL a 0 ) 2L vdc0
2L vdc0 3
1 KI f
1 ωL A(8, 12) = (−vL b0 + vU b0 )
A(5, 8) = √ (−vU a 0 + vL a 0 ) 2L vdc0
L 3 vdc0
ω 2ω
1 KI A(9, 7) = −1, A(9, 9) = − √ , A(9, 10) = − √
A(5, 9) = (vU a 0 − vL a 0 ) 3 3
2L vdc0
2ω ω
A(5, 11) =
1 KI f
(vU a 0 + vL a 0 ) A(10, 8) = −1, A(10, 9) = √ , A(10, 10) = √
2L vdc0 3 3
ηU∗ b 0 η∗ 2ω 4ω
A(6, 2) = − , A(6, 4) = − L b 0 A(11, 5) = −1, A(11, 11) = √ , A(11, 12) = √
2L 2L 3 3
2ω 4ω 2ω
A(6, 5) = √ (vU b 0 + vL b 0 ) A(12, 6) = −1, A(12, 11) = − √ , A(12, 12) = − √
3 vdc0

  3 3
1 1 2 ωL
A(6, 6) = −R − Kp f − √ (vU b 0 + vL b 0 ) Elements of B(t) matrix:
L 2vdc0 3

1 ωL N Kp cos ρ ia0
A(6, 7) = √ (vU b 0 − vL b 0 ) B(1, 1) = − + idiffa0
L 3 vdc0 Cvdc0 2



1 1 ωL N Kp sin ρ ia0
A(6, 8) = Kp − √ (−vU b 0 + vL b 0 ) B(1, 2) = + idiffa0
2L vdc0 3 Cvdc0 2
5262 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 7, JULY 2016


N Kpf cos ξ ia0
B(1, 3) = − + idiffa0 Kpf cos ξ
Cvdc0 2 B(7, 3) = (−vL a0 + vU a0 )

 2L vdc0
N Kpf sin ξ ia0
B(1, 4) = + idiffa0 Kpf sin ξ
Cvdc0 2 B(7, 4) = (vL a0 − vU a0 )


 2L vdc0
N Kp ib0 2π

B(2, 1) = − + idiffb0 cos ρ − Kp 2π
Cvdc0 2 3 B(8, 1) = (vL b0 + vU b0 ) cos ρ −


 2L vdc0 3
N Kp ib0 2π

B(2, 2) = + idiffb0 sin ρ − Kp 2π
Cvdc0 2 3 B(8, 2) = (−vL b0 − vU b0 ) sin ρ −


 2L vdc0 3
N Kpf ib0 4π

B(2, 3) = − + idiffb0 cos ξ − Kpf 4π
Cvdc0 2 3 B(8, 3) = (−v L b0 + v U b0 ) cos ξ −


 2L vdc0 3
N Kpf ib0 4π

B(2, 4) = + idiffb0 sin ξ − Kpf 4π
Cvdc0 2 3 B(8, 4) = (v L b0 − v U b0 ) sin ξ −

 2L vdc0 3
N Kpf cos ξ ia0
B(3, 3) = − − + idiffa0 B(9, 1) = cos ρ, B(9, 2) = − sin ρ
Cvdc0 2



 2π 2π
N Kpf sin ξ ia0 B(10, 1) = cos ρ − , B(10, 2) = − sin ρ −
B(3, 4) = − + idiffa0 3 3
Cvdc0 2


 B(11, 3) = cos ξ, B(11, 4) = − sin ξ
N Kp ib0 2π
B(4, 1) = − + idiffb0 cos ρ −


Cvdc0 2 3 4π 4π


 B(12, 3) = cos ξ − , B(12, 4) = − sin ξ −
N Kp ib0 2π 3 3
B(4, 2) = − − + idiffb0 sin ρ −
Cvdc0 2 3 Elements of Γ(t) matrix:




N Kpf ib0 4π N ia0
B(4, 3) = − − + idiffb0 cos ξ − Γ(1, 1) = − + idiffa0
Cvdc0 2 3 Cvdc0 2




N Kpf ib0 4π N e∗a0 ia0
B(4, 4) = − + idiffb0 sin ξ − Γ(1, 3) = 2 + idiffa0
Cvdc0 2 3 Cvdc0 2
Kp cos ρ N ηU∗ a0
B(5, 1) = (vU a0 − vL a0 ) Γ(1, 4) =
2Lvdc0 3C


Kp sin ρ N ib0
B(5, 2) = (−vU a0 + vL a0 ) Γ(2, 2) = − + idiffb0
2Lvdc0 Cvdc0 2


B(5, 3) =
Kpf cos ξ
(vU a0 + vL a0 ) N e∗b0 ib0
2Lvdc0 Γ(2, 3) = 2 + idiffb0
Cvdc0 2
Kpf sin ξ N ηU∗ b0
B(5, 4) = (−vU a0 − vL a0 ) Γ(2, 4) =
2Lvdc0 3C



Kp 2π N ia0
B(6, 1) = (vU b0 − vL b0 ) cos ρ − Γ(3, 1) = − + idiffa0
2Lvdc0 3 Cvdc0 2



Kp 2π ∗
(−vU b0 + vL b0 ) sin ρ − N ea0 ia0
B(6, 2) =
2Lvdc0 3 Γ(3, 3) = − 2 − + idiffa0
Cvdc0 2


B(6, 3) =
Kpf
(vU b0 + vL b0 ) cos ξ −
4π N ηL∗ a0
2Lvdc0 3 Γ(3, 4) =
3C



Kpf 4π N ib0
B(6, 4) = (−vU b0 − vL b0 ) sin ξ − Γ(4, 2) = − + idiffb0
2Lvdc0 3 Cvdc0 2


Kp cos ρ N e∗ ib0
B(7, 1) = (vL a0 + vU a0 ) Γ(4, 3) = − 2b0 − + idiffb0
2L vdc0 Cvdc0 2
Kp sin ρ N ηL∗ b0
B(7, 2) = (−vL a0 − vU a0 ) Γ(4, 4) =
2L vdc0 3C
CHAUDHURI et al.: STABILITY ANALYSIS OF VECTOR-CONTROLLED MMCs IN LTP FRAMEWORK 5263

1 It can be seen that the state-space model (37) is primarily

Γ(5, 1) = (vU a0 − vL a0 ) ω
2Lvdc0 TA -periodic with a time period of TA = . Hence, we can
  2π
1 e∗ categorize this as an LTP system. Therefore, the stability prop-
Γ(5, 3) = 1 + 2a0 (−vU a0 + vL a0 )
2L vdc0 erties of LTP systems [50], [51] can be applied in this case.
R For the sake of completeness, one can recall the following def-
Γ(5, 4) = − initions and fundamental concepts relating the LTP systems [50],
3L
[51]:
1
Γ(6, 2) = (vU b0 − vL b0 ) 1) Fundamentals of LTP Systems:
2Lvdc0 a) Periodic function: A function is primarily TA -periodic or
 
1 e∗b0 periodic with primary period TA if TA ∈ +∗ is the small-
Γ(6, 3) = 1 + 2 (−vU b0 + vL b0 ) est number such that
2L vdc0
R f (t) = f (t + TA ), ∀t (38)
Γ(6, 4) = −
3L
  where +∗ denotes the set of real strictly positive numbers.
1 1 b) LTP system: An LTP system is characterized by the fol-
Γ(7, 1) =  −1 + (vU a0 + vL a0 )
L 2vdc0 lowing representation:
e∗a0
2 (−vL a0 − vU a0 )
Γ(7, 3) = Δẋ(t) = A(t)Δx(t) + B(t)Δu(t) + Γ(t)Δz(t),
2L vdc0
  Δx(t) ∈ n , Δu(t) ∈ m , Δz(t) ∈ p .
1 1
Γ(8, 2) =  −1 + (vU b0 + vL b0 )
L 2vdc0 Here, the elements of matrices A(t), B(t), and Γ(t) are
known, real-valued, piecewise continuous, primarily TA -
e∗b0
Γ(8, 3) = 2 (−vL b0 − vU b0 ) .
2L vdc0
periodic functions defined on + .
c) Fundamental matrix: Any nonsingular solution of the ho-
Next, we will analyze the stability properties of this linearized mogeneous differential system Δẋ (t) = A(t)Δx (t) is
model. known as its fundamental matrix.
d) State transition matrix (STM): There exists a unique fun-
B. LTP Framework and Analysis damental matrix Φ(t, t0 ) of the homogeneous system men-
tioned above, such that Φ(t0 , t0 ) = I. This matrix is called
From the expressions of A(t), B(t), and Γ(t), it is clear that the STM of the system. Without any loss of generality, we
the elements of these matrices are functions of instantaneous shall assume t0 = 0.
values of different variables (e.g., voltages, currents, and con- e) Monodromy matrix: The STM computed after one time
troller state variables). From the physical properties of MMC, it period TA , i.e., Φ(TA , 0) is known as the monodromy
is known that some of these have only fundamental frequency matrix.
component while others have dc, fundamental, second harmonic f) Poincaré multipliers: The eigenvalues of the monodromy
components, or a combination thereof. Let the nominal operat- matrix are called the Poincaré multipliers.
ing condition for phase a variables be For the stability analysis of the LTP systems, it is essential
e∗a0 = Em 0 cos(ωt + θea0 ) to calculate the STM Φ(·, 0). In most cases, the STM cannot
be computed in closed form. Fortunately, the computation of
e∗f a0 = Em f 0 cos (2 ωt + θef a0 ) a monodromy matrix Φ(TA , 0), which is essentially the STM
ia0 = Im 0 cos(ωt + θia0 ) after one time period TA , suffices for stability analysis.
The monodromy matrix Φ(TA , 0) can be calculated by numer-
idc0 ically solving the equation Δẋ(t) = A(t)Δx(t) with n different
idiffa0 = + I2f 0 cos(2 ωt + ϕ0 )
3 initial conditions xr (0) =
r , r = 1, 2, . . . n, where
r = [δr i ]
vU a0 = VU 00 + VU 10 cos(ωt + θU 10 ) is the rth column of the identity matrix I [50]. Let xr (TA ),
r = 1, 2, ..., n, be the n independent solutions obtained for each
+ VU 20 cos(2 ωt + θU 20 ) initial condition. Then, the monodromy matrix is given by
vL a0 = VL 00 + VL 10 cos(ωt + θL 10 )  
Φ (TA , 0) = x1 (TA ) x2 (TA ) . . . xn (TA ) . (39)
+ VL 20 cos(2 ωt + θL 20 ).
As mentioned above, the eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix
Similar expressions can be written for the phase b variables. are called the Poincaré multipliers. For an asymptotically stable
Substituting these variables in the expressions of A(t), B(t), system, the Poincaré multipliers lie within the unit circle.
and Γ(t), it is clear that the linear model is time-varying. Stabil- Therefore, the steps for conducting stability analysis of the
ity analysis of such an LTV system is challenging since modal proposed MMC model are summarized as follows:
analysis methods, such as eigenvalue analysis used for LTI sys- Step I: Derive the nonlinear state-space AVM of MMC as
tems, cannot be applied. described in (33).
5264
Fig. 4. Comparison of the response between the detailed model in PSCAD/EMTDC against a nonlinear averaged model in MATLAB/Simulink. The circulating
current controller is enabled at t = 3.0 s.
Step II: Develop the LTP model of the MMC by linearizing
the nonlinear AVM obtained from Step I around an
operating condition (x0 , u0 , z0 ) as shown in (37).
Step III: Calculate the monodromy matrix Φ(TA , 0) by nu-
merical integration of Δẋ(t) = A(t)Δx(t) with
n different initial conditions xr (0) =
r , r = sources, two resistances, and two inductances. The termi-
1, 2, . . . n, where
r = [δr i ] is the rth column of the nal voltage is connected to the ac grid through a leakage
identity matrix I [50]. This has been described be-
fore in more detail.
Step IV: Compute the Poincaré multipliers, i.e., the eigenval-
ues of the monodromy matrix Φ(TA , 0).
Step V: If the largest magnitude of the Poincaré multiplier is
less than unity, then the MMC is considered asymp-
totically stable.
VII. CASE STUDY
A. Test System
The test system consists of a 401-level, 1000-MW, ±320-kV
MMC (see Fig. 1), with the following parameters:
Rated M V A = 1059 MVA, N = 400, C = 10 mF,
L = 50 mH, R = 0.5236 Ω,
Lt = 60 mH, Rt = 0.5236 Ω.
B. Benchmarking the AVM With SM Insertion Dynamics
The proposed nonlinear AVM of the MMC was described in
Section V and the state-space model was presented in a compact
form in Subsection V-D. These differential equations were im-
plemented using basic math blocks from MATLAB/Simulink
library and its response was benchmarked against a detailed
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 7, JULY 2016
model built in PSCAD/EMTDC. The detailed model considers
individual SMs and the voltage balancing control for all 400
SMs per arm. The MMC simulation model was developed in
PSCAD/EMTDC in the following way:
1) The converter leg was modeled by two dependent voltage
reactance.
2) Each dependent voltage source in the arm is controlled by
a hosted code that reads the arm currents and computes
the voltage of each SM, generating the control signal for
the dependent voltage sources and forming the final arm
voltage. The hosted code has a 500-kHz sample frequency,
allowing a high accuracy in the digital computation.
3) The simulation model results were compared to other sim-
ulation models where each SM was created by conven-
tional electronic components from PSCAD library, for
M = 4, 6, 8, 10, and 20, showing negligible error.
4) Then, the simulation model was augmented for M = 400,
in order to simulate the system mentioned in this paper.
Such a benchmarking analysis gives us the confidence in the
accuracy of the AVM and any stability analysis that is performed
by linearizing such models.
The converter was assumed to control the real power (P )
and the reactive power (Q) at the PCC (see Fig. 1). The PI
compensator parameters for the output current control scheme
and the circulating current control scheme were calculated using
the following equations:
L R L R
Kp = , KI = , Kpf = , KI f = .
τ τ τf τf
CHAUDHURI et al.: STABILITY ANALYSIS OF VECTOR-CONTROLLED MMCs IN LTP FRAMEWORK
Fig. 5. Zoomed view of the response from the detailed model in PSCAD/EMTDC, compared against a nonlinear averaged model in MATLAB/Simulink. The
circulating current controller is enabled at t = 3.0 s.
For benchmarking studies, τ1 = 500 s−1 and τ1f = 2000 s−1 was
chosen.
1) Enabling Circulating Current Control: The response of
different variables obtained from the nonlinear averaged model
(black trace) is compared against the detailed model (red trace)
in Fig. 4. During t = 0 − 3.0 s, the circulating current controller
is not activated. It can be seen that the converter is controlling
the real power P at 1000 MW at unity power factor. The circu-
lating current idiffa has a dc component and a double frequency
component. As expected, the phase current ia does not have any
harmonics. The voltages across the upper and lower arm SMs
that are turned ON, v1a and v2a , have second and third harmon-
ics. It can be seen that, under steady state, the dotted traces and
the solid traces overlap almost indistinguishably.
At t = 3.0 s, the circulating current controller is enabled. The
controller suppresses the second harmonic component and only
the dc component remains in idiffa . Following the transients at
t = 3.0 s, harmonic content in voltages v1a and v2a are sig-
nificantly reduced. It can also be observed that the circulating
current control scheme is not completely decoupled from the
output current control scheme. Transients in real power P , re-
active power Q, and phase current ia can be observed. It can
be seen that the response of the averaged model very closely
matches that of the detailed model.
The zoomed view of v1a and v2a are shown in Fig. 5. One
can appreciate the close match between these models from
this figure. It can also be observed that the detailed model
inserts the SMs in a discrete manner as opposed to the aver-
aged model that treats the insertion of SMs as a continuous
function.
5265
C. Stability Analysis
1) Eigenanalysis of Phasor-Based AVM: As described in
Sections III-B and IV, stability of phasor-based AVM can
be analyzed through eigenvalue analysis. Considering τ1 =
500 s−1 , eigenvalues were obtained from the state matrix shown
in (7). The eigenvalues are: λ = [−500.0000 − 36.9599 −
382.2588 − 154.7011]. Please note that the eigenvalues are real,
stable, and independent of the circulating current controller
gains.
2) Stability Analysis of AVM Considering SM Insertion Dy-
namics: The nonlinear averaged model was linearized for sta-
bility analysis. As mentioned in Section VI, the first step in this
process is to obtain a steady-state operating condition. In this
case, the steady-state condition (x0 , u0 , z0 ) was obtained by
numerical integration of (33) under P = 1000 MW and Q = 0
MVAr with the circulating current controller enabled. The values
of the variables needed for computing matrix A of the linearized
model are
e∗a0 = 276.60cos(ωt + 0.14)
e∗f a0 = 19.35 cos (2 ωt − 4.63)
ia0 = 2.45cos(ωt)
idiffa0 = 0.5250
vU a0 = 634.37 + 50.01cos(ωt − 1.70)
+ 16.95cos(2 ωt − 4.52)
vL a0 = 634.37 + 50.01cos(ωt + 1.44)
+ 16.95cos(2 ωt − 4.52)
5266 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 7, JULY 2016

Fig. 6. Time-periodic nature of the elements of the A matrix in the linear model. Trajectories of the elements of the first, third, fifth, and seventh rows are shown.

1
Fig. 7. Locus of the maximum value of the magnitude of the Poincaré multipliers with respect to τf . The operating condition corresponds to P = 1000 MW,
Q = 0 MVAr.

where the angles are expressed in radians, voltages are in kV, The corresponding Poincaré multipliers are
and currents are in kA. The values of the phase-b quantities can
μ= [0.8717 + 0.0000j 0.8427 + 0.0000j . . .
be determined considering appropriate phase difference.
Under this nominal condition, the periodic nature of the el- 0.8380 ± 0.0655j 0.1437 + 0.0000j . . .
ements of the first, third, fifth, and seventh row of matrix A
0.0066 ± 0.1032j 0.0130 + 0.0000j . . .
are illustrated in Fig. 6. The monodromy matrix was computed
through numerical integration as mentioned in Section VI-B. −0.0007 ± 0.0006j − 0.0000 ± 0.0000j]T .
CHAUDHURI et al.: STABILITY ANALYSIS OF VECTOR-CONTROLLED MMCs IN LTP FRAMEWORK 5267

Fig. 8. Comparison of response between the detailed model in PSCAD/EMTDC against a nonlinear averaged model in MATLAB/Simulink. Instability is
observed in the response when τ1 is set to 5000 s−1 . The operating condition corresponds to P = 1000 MW, Q = 0 MVAr. At t = 3.0 s, the circulating current
f
controller is enabled.

Fig. 9. Response obtained from the averaged model. Instability is observed in the response when 1
τf is set to 150 s−1 . The operating condition corresponds to
P = 1000 MW, Q = 0 MVAr. At t = 3.0 s, the circulating current controller is enabled.
5268
Therefore, the system is stable as the multipliers lie within
the unit circle.
Next, the value of the PI controller parameters were changed
by varying the value of τ1f . The locus of the maximum value
of the magnitude of the Poincaré multipliers with respect to
1
τ f is shown in Fig. 7. The operating condition corresponds to
P = 1000 MW, Q = 0 MVAr. It can be seen that an increase in
the value from 2000 to 4400 s−1 moves the maximum value of
the magnitude of the Poincaré multipliers towards the perimeter
of the unit circle.
The value of τ1f was set to 5000 s−1 and the simulation was
run for the condition P = 1000 MW, Q = 0 MVAr. At t =
3.0 s, the circulating current controller is enabled. Fig. 8 shows
the instability under such a scenario. The averaged model and
the detailed model both demonstrate this phenomenon.
When the value of τ1f is reduced from 2000 s−1 , it can be
seen from Fig. 7 that the maximum value of |μ| reduces and be-
comes minimum just above 1500 s−1 . As τ1f is reduced further,
the system approaches instability. Fig. 9 shows the response ob-
tained from the averaged model. Instability is observed in the
response when τ1f is set to 150 s−1 , with the operating point
corresponding to P = 1000 MW, Q = 0 MVAr. At t = 3.0 s,
the circulating current controller is enabled.
VIII. CONCLUSION
A framework for stability analysis of the MMC is presented
based on the LTP nature of the proposed model. It has been
shown that the proposed framework can indicate the zones of
instability for certain gains of the circulating current controller,
which cannot be captured by the traditional eigenvalue analysis
of phasor-based AVM.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers
for their constructive comments, which were very helpful in
improving the quality of the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Lesnicar and R. Marquardt, “An innovative modular multilevel con-
verter topology suitable for a wide power range,” IEEE Power Tech Conf.,
p. 6, vol. 3, Jun. 2003.
[2] M. A. Perez, S. Bernet, J. Rodriguez, and S. Kouro, “Editorial special
issue on modular multilevel converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–3, Jan. 2015.
[3] X. Yang, J. Li, X. Wang, W. Fan, and T. Q. Zheng, “Circulating cur-
rent model of modular multilevel converter,” in Proc. Asia-Pacific Power
Energy Eng. Conf., Mar. 25–28, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[4] J. Kolb, F. Kammerer, and M. Braun, “Straight forward vector control of
the modular multilevel converter for feeding three-phase machines over
their complete frequency range,” in Proc. 37th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind.
Electron. Soc., Nov. 7–10, 2011, pp. 1596–1601.
[5] J. Kolb, F. Kammerer, M. Gommeringer, and M. Braun, “Cascaded control
system of the modular multilevel converter for feeding Variable-Speed
drives,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 349–357, Jan.
2015.
[6] P. Munch, D. Gorges, M. Izak, and L. Steven, “Integrated current control,
energy control and energy balancing of Modular Multilevel Converters,”
in Proc. 36th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., Nov. 7–10, 2010,
pp. 150–155.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 31, NO. 7, JULY 2016
[7] P. Munch, L. Steven, and G. Ebner, “Multivariable current control of
modular multilevel converters with disturbance rejection and harmonics
compensation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control Appl., Sep. 8–10, 2010,
pp. 196–201.
[8] D. Siemaszko, A. Antonopoulos, K. Ilves, M. Vasiladiotis, A. Lennart, and
H. -P. Nee, “Evaluation of control and modulation methods for modular
multilevel converters,” in Proc. Int. Power Electron. Conf., Jun. 21–24,
2010, pp. 746–753.
[9] A. Lachichi and L. Harnefors, “Comparative analysis of control strategies
for modular multilevel converters,” in Proc. IEEE 9th Int. Conf. Power
Electron. Drive Syst., Dec. 5–8, 2011, pp. 538–542.
[10] I. Kalle, A. Antonopoulos, H. Lennart, N. Staffan, and H. -P. Nee, “Circu-
lating current control in modular multilevel converters with fundamental
switching frequency,” in Proc. 7th Int. Power Electron. Motion Control
Conf., Jun. 2–5, 2012, pp. 249–256.
[11] E. Solas, G. Abad, J. A. Barrena, A. Carcar, and S. Aurtenetxea, “Mod-
elling, simulation and control of modular multilevel converter,” in Proc.
14th Int. Power Electron. Motion Control Conf., Sep. 6–8, 2010, pp. T290–
T296.
[12] M. A. Perez and J. Rodriguez,“Generalized modeling and simulation of
a modular multilevel converter,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Ind. Electron.,
Jun. 27–30, 2011, pp. 1863–1868.
[13] M. A. Perez, F. R. Lizana , and J. Rodriguez, ,“Decoupled current control
of modular multilevel converter for HVDC applications,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Symp. Ind. Electron., May 28–31, 2012, pp. 1979–1984.
[14] Z. Yan, H. Xue-hao, T. Guang-fu, and H. Zhi-Yuan, “A study on
MMC model and its current control strategies,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE
Int. Symp. Power Electron. Distrib. Gener. Syst., Jun. 16–18, 2010,
pp. 259–264.
[15] S. P. Engel, and R. W. De Doncker, “Control of the modular multi-level
converter for minimized cell capacitance,” in Proc. 14th Eur. Conf. Power
Electron. Appl., Aug. 30–Sep. 1 2011, pp. 1–10.
[16] S. Rohner, S. Bernet, M. Hiller, and R. Sommer, “Modelling, simula-
tion and analysis of a modular multilevel converter for medium voltage
applications,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Technol., Mar. 14–17, 2010,
pp. 775–782.
[17] S. Rohner, J. Weber, and S. Bernet, “Continuous model of modular mul-
tilevel converter with experimental verification,” in Proc. IEEE Energy
Convers. Cong. Expo., Sep. 17–22, 2011, pp. 4021–4028.
[18] U. N. Gnanarathna, A. M. Gole, and R. P. Jayasinghe, “Efficient model-
ing of modular multilevel HVDC converters (MMC) on electromagnetic
transient simulation programs,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 26,
no. 1, pp. 316–324, Jan. 2011.
[19] F. Ajaei and R. Iravani, “Enhanced equivalent model of the modular mul-
tilevel converter,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 666–673,
Apr. 2015.
[20] O. Venjakob, S. Kubera, R. Hibberts-Caswell, P. A. Forsyth, and
T. L. Maguire, “Setup and performance of the Real-Time simulator used
for Hardware-in-Loop-Tests of a VSC-Based HVDC scheme for offshore
applications,” presented at the Int. Conf. Power Syst. Transients, Vancou-
ver, BC, Canada, Jul. 18–20, 2013.
[21] H. Saad, S. Dennetiere, J. Mahseredjian, P. Delarue, X. Guillaud, J. Peralta,
and S. Nguefeu, “Modular multilevel converter models for electromag-
netic transient,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1481–1489,
Jul. 2013.
[22] D. C. Ludois, and G. Venkataramanan, “Simplified terminal behavioral
model for a modular multilevel converter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1622–1631, Apr. 2014.
[23] M. Vasiladiotis, N. Cherix, and A. Rufer, “Accurate capacitor voltage
ripple estimation and current control considerations for Grid- Connected
modular multilevel converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29,
no. 9, pp. 4568–4579, Sep. 2014.
[24] B. S. Riar, T. Geyer, and U. K. Madawala, “Model predictive direct cur-
rent control of modular multilevel Converters: Modeling, analysis, and
experimental evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 1,
pp. 431–439, Jan. 2015.
[25] B. S. Riar, and U. K. Madawala, “Decoupled control of modular multi-
level converters using voltage correcting modules,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 690–698, Feb. 2015.
[26] S. Norrga, L. Angquist, K. Ilves, L. Harnefors, and H.-P. Nee, “Frequency-
domain modeling of modular multilevel converters,” in Proc. 38th Annu.
Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., Oct. 25–28, 2012, pp. 4967–4972.
[27] S. P. Teeuwsen, “Simplified dynamic model of a voltage-sourced converter
with modular multilevel converter design,” in Proc. IEEE/PES Power Syst.
Conf. Expo., Mar. 15–18, 2009, pp. 1–6.
CHAUDHURI et al.: STABILITY ANALYSIS OF VECTOR-CONTROLLED MMCs IN LTP FRAMEWORK
[28] Working Group on Modeling and Analysis of System Transients Using
Digital Programs, “Dynamic averaged and simplified models for MMC-
Based HVDC transmission systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 28,
no. 3, pp. 1723–1730, Jul. 2013.
[29] Cigre’ Working group B4.57, “Guide for the Development of Models for
HVDC Converters in a HVDC Grid,” SCB4, Brochure 604, 2014.
[30] A. Antonopoulos, L. Angquist, and H. P. Nee, “On dynamics and voltage
control of the modular multilevel converter,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Power
Electron. Appl., Barcelona, Spain, 2009.
[31] A. Antonopoulos, L. Angquist, L. Harnefors, K. Ilves, and H. P. Nee,
“Global asymptotic stability of modular multilevel converter,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 603–612, Feb. 2014.
[32] L. Harnefors, A. Antonopoulos, S. Norrga, L. Angquist, and H. -P. Nee,
“Dynamic analysis of modular multilevel converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 2526–2537, Jul. 2013.
[33] L. Harnefors, S. Norrga, A. Antonopoulos, and H. -P. Nee, “Dynamic
modeling of modular multilevel converters,” in Proc. 14th Eur. Conf.
Power Electron. Appl., Aug.. 30–Sep. 1 2011, pp. 1–10.
[34] M. Hagiwara, R. Maeda, and H. Akagi, “Control and analysis of the
modular multilevel Cascaded Converter based on double-star chopper-
cells (MMCC-DSCC),” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 6, pp.
1649–1658, Jun. 2011.
[35] M. Hagiwara and H. Akagi, “PWM control and experiment of modular
multilevel converter,” in Proc. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., Tokyo,
Japan, Jun. 2008, pp. 154–161.
[36] M. Saeedifard and R. Iravani, “Dynamic performance of a modular mul-
tilevel back-to-back HVDC system,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25,
no. 4, pp. 2903–2912, Oct. 2010.
[37] E. Solas, G. Abad, J. A. Barrena, A. Carcar, and S. Aurtenetxea, “Mod-
ulation of modular multilevel converter for HVDC application,” in Proc.
14th Int. Power Electron. Motion Control Conf., Mondragon, Spain, Sep.
2010, pp. 84–89.
[38] P. M. Meshram, and V. B. Borghate, “A simplified nearest level con-
trol (NLC) voltage balancing method for modular multilevel converter
(MMC),” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 450–462, Jan.
2015.
[39] D. Siemaszko, “Fast sorting method for balancing capacitor voltages in
modular multilevel converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30,
no. 1, pp. 463–470, Jan. 2015.
[40] F. Deng and Z. Chen; ,“A control method for voltage balancing in mod-
ular multilevel converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 66–76, Jan. 2014.
[41] S. Fan, K. Zhang, J. Xiong, and Y. Xue, “An improved control system for
modular multilevel converters with new modulation strategy and voltage
balancing control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 358–
371, Jan. 2015.
[42] F. Deng and Z. Chen, “Elimination of DC-Link current ripple for modu-
lar multilevel converters with capacitor Voltage-Balancing Pulse-Shifted
carrier PWM,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 284–296,
Jan. 2015.
[43] Q. Tu, Z. Xu, and L. Xu, “Reduced Switching-Frequency mand circulat-
ing current suppression for modular multilevel converters,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 2009–2017, Jul. 2011.
[44] R. Darus, J. Pou, G. Konstantinou, S. Ceballos, and V. G. Agelidis, “Cir-
culating current control and evaluation of carrier dispositions in modular
multilevel converters,” in Proc. IEEE ECCE Asia Downunder, Jun. 3–6,
2013, pp. 332–338.
[45] S. Li, X. Wang, Z. Yao, T. Li, and Z. Peng, “Circulating current suppressing
strategy for MMC-HVDC based on nonideal proportional resonant con-
trollers under unbalanced grid conditions,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 387–397, Jan. 2015.
[46] J. P, S. Ceballos, G. Konstantinou, V. G. Agelidis, R. Picas, and J.
Zaragoza, “Circulating current injection methods based on instantaneous
information for the modular multilevel converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec-
tron., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 777–788, Feb. 2015.
[47] L. He, K. Zhang, J. Xiong, and S. Fan, “A repetitive control scheme
for harmonic suppression of circulating current in modular multilevel
converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 471–481,
Jan. 2015.
[48] M. Zhang, L. Huang, W. Yao, and Z. Lu, “Circulating harmonic current
elimination of a CPS-PWM-Based modular multilevel converter with a
Plug-In Repetitive controller,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no.
4, pp. 2083–2097, Apr. 2014.
5269
[49] A. Yazdani and R. Iravani, Voltage-Sourced Converters in Power Sys-
tems: Modeling, Control, and Applications, 1st ed. New York, NY, USA:
Wiley/IEEE Press, 2010.
[50] M. Montagnier, R. J. Spiteri, and J. Angeles, “The control of linear time-
periodic systems with Floquet-Lyapunov theory,” Int. J. Control, vol. 77,
no. 5, pp. 472–490, Jan. 2004.
[51] W. J. Rugh Linear System Theory (Prentice-Hall Information and Systems
Sciences Series). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1993.
Nilanjan Ray Chaudhuri (S’08–M’09) received the
Ph.D. degree in power systems from Imperial College
London, London, U.K., in 2011.
From 2005 to 2007, he was with General Electric
(GE) John F. Welch Technology Center. He came
back to GE and worked in GE Global Research
Center, Niskayuna, NY, USA as a Lead Engineer dur-
ing 2011–2014. He is currently an Assistant Profes-
sor with North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND,
USA.He is the lead author of the book Multi-Terminal
Direct Current Grids: Modeling, Analysis, and Con-
trol (New York, NY, USA: Wiley/IEEE Press, 2014),
Dr. Chaudhuri is an Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER
DELIVERY. He is a Member of the IEEE Power Engineering Society and Sigma
Xi.
Rafael Oliveira received the B.Sc. degree in control
and automation engineering and the M.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering from Pontifica Univeridade
Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil,
in 2003 and 2005, respectively. He is currently work-
ing toward the Ph.D. degree in the Electrical Engi-
neering Program at Ryerson University, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
His main research interests include power convert-
ers for power systems applications, including simu-
lation, control, and modeling.
Amirnaser Yazdani (SM’09) received the Ph.D. de-
gree in electrical engineering from the University of
Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 2005.
He was an Assistant Professor with the Univer-
sity of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. He
is currently an Associate Professor at Ryerson Uni-
versity, Toronto, ON. His research interests include
modeling and control of electronic power converters,
renewable electric power systems, distributed genera-
tion and storage, and microgrids. He is a co-author of
the book Voltage-Sourced Converters in Power Sys-
tems (New York, NY, USA: IEEE-Wiley Press, 2010).
Dr. Yazdani is an Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAIN-
ABLE ENERGY.