IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO.
9, SEPTEMBER 2020 7135
Seamless Dynamics for Wild-Frequency Active
Rectifiers in More Electric Aircraft
Joseph Benzaquen , Student Member, IEEE, and Behrooz Mirafzal , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—In this article, a seamless dynamics controller
for wild-frequency active rectifiers in more electric aircraft
(MEA) is presented. The novelty of the proposed control
scheme resides in its ability to seamlessly regulate the
output dc-bus voltage and input reactive power in the
presence of rapid frequency changes. These smooth dy-
namics are achieved through a multivariable direct model
reference adaptive control (MRAC) formulation, which al-
lows the gains of the controller to adjust themselves to
the wild-frequency operation of the MEA power generation.
The validity and performance effectiveness of the proposed
seamless dynamics control scheme is verified experimen-
tally through a laboratory-scaled three-phase 1.5-kW 270-V
SiC two-level voltage-source-converter using a variable-
frequency programmable grid emulator. Moreover, a tra-
ditional proportional-integral controller is implemented
experimentally with the same converter as a benchmark to
highlight the merits of the proposed MRAC.
Index Terms—Active rectifier, adaptive control, seamless
dynamics, wild-frequency, more electric aircraft (MEA).
I. INTRODUCTION
ORE electric aircraft (MEA) designs are emerging in the
M aerospace industry as an effective way to reduce the vol-
ume and weight of an aircraft while lowering emissions and in-
creasing fuel efficiency [1]. In a MEA design, the majority of the
onboard loads are supplied by a set of electric generators, which
are directly driven by the aircraft’s jet engines. Consequently, the
output voltage of the generators exhibits a variable-frequency
characteristic that ranges between 360–800 Hz [2]. This wild-
frequency characteristic imposes a new design challenge in all
the onboard power converters. In particular, the ac–dc converter
requires special attention as approximately half of the onboard
load is connected to it. In modern MEA, the ac–dc conversion
is performed by a passive multipulse autotransformer rectifier
unit (ATRU), whose main disadvantages are the production of
high-order odd-nontriplen harmonics and non-unity power fac-
tor operation [3], [4]. For this reason, active rectifiers postulate
themselves as a competitive alternative for ATRU, given their
Manuscript received May 23, 2019; revised August 6, 2019; accepted
September 14, 2019. Date of publication October 2, 2019; date of current
version April 30, 2020. (Corresponding author: Behrooz Mirafzal.)
The authors are with the Electrical and Computer Engineering De-
partment, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA (e-mail:,
jbenzaquen@ksu.edu; mirafzal@ksu.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2019.2944071
0278-0046 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
low input current total harmonic distortion (THD), unity power
factor operation, and dc-bus voltage regulation [5], [6].
Ideally, an ac–dc converter for MEA applications must be
equipped with a fast and effective control scheme that can han-
dle the rapid changes in frequency that the jet engines deliv-
ers. The main objective of this converter is to regulate the dc-
bus voltage while maintaining a unity power factor and low
input current THD. In general, there are two kinds of con-
trol strategies for active rectifiers (i) voltage-oriented control
(VOC) [7] and (ii) model predictive control (MPC) [8]. In a
VOC, the regulation of the dc-bus voltage and reactive power is
achieved in the dq0 synchronous frame of reference using two
decoupled cascaded proportional-integral (PI) control loops [9].
These PI-loops generate the dq current references, which are
then regulated by the inner current control loops. Depending
on the application, the inner control loop can be a hystere-
sis [10], PI, proportional-derivative (PD), proportional resonant
(PR) [11], among others. All of the aforementioned controller
types require tuning and can be sensitive to parameter varia-
tions and external disturbances [12]. On the other hand, MPC
has been broadly proposed as another alternative control method
for power converters, given its fast dynamic response and ac-
ceptable steady-state performance [13]. MPC strategies can be
categorized into 1) finite-control set (FCS) and 2) continuous-
control set (CCS). The major difference between FCS and CCS
is that in FCS the converter operates at a variable-switching
frequency, whereas CCS schemes use a pulsewidth-modulator
(PWM) stage to achieve a constant switching frequency opera-
tion. In this sense, FCS schemes can be unattractive for sensitive
applications, such as MEA, due to their EMI propagation, au-
dible noise, LC/LCL filter resonance, and heatsink design [14].
In addition, MPC schemes heavily rely on the correct model
parameter settings to predict the optimal control action, and
they generally fail to fully minimize the steady-state error in the
control variables [15].
As systems become more complex and automated, adaptive
control schemes have once again regained popularity. More
specifically, direct model reference adaptive control (MRAC)
can now be found in modern application such as: electric
drives [16], [17], active filters [18], [19], and power convert-
ers [20]–[22]. The main advantage of MRACs is their ability
to merge the system parameter identification and control func-
tions into one scheme [23]. In these direct algorithms, the gains
of the controller are adaptively adjusted based on the system’s
operating point, such that the plant follows the response of a
predesigned reference model. The authors in [18] implement
 7136 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2020

MRAC to cancel the harmonics/reactive components of a

single-phase nonlinear load using a linearized second-order
model of the system. Conversely, in [19], a third-order nonlin-
ear model is implemented to adaptively estimate the parameters
and control a three-phase shunt active filter. Finally, in [20],
the authors present simulation results for an adaptive control
combined with a H∞ technique for three-phase active rectifiers.
In this article, a seamless dynamics control scheme for wild-
frequency active rectifiers in MEA is presented. The proposed
control scheme is based on a multi-input/multi-output model
reference direct adaptive technique, whose main objective is to
have the controlled variables of the system match the dynamic
performance of a reference model. This reference model is de- Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the three-phase active rectifier.
signed to satisfy the system design specifications in terms of rise
time, overshoot, and settling time. In addition, given its direct
or implicit formulation, the proposed adaptive controller does
not rely on the estimation nor knowledge of the parameters of
the system. Thus making it suitable for a system such as the
MEA active rectifier given its nonlinear and parameter variation Fig. 2. Block diagram of the direct PLL used in this article [24].
nature. For the proposed MRAC scheme, the control variables
are the dc-bus voltage and reactive power. Using a dq0 syn- only the voltage drop across the inductive filter, the line current
chronous frame of reference formulation, the aforementioned dynamic equations in the abc-coordinate system can be written
variables can be controlled by setting the appropriate references as
values for the d− and q−currents. The proposed controller is ⎡ R ⎤ ⎡ p cc ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ s ⎤
composed of two main control loops. In the first loop, two PI vab vab Rf 0 0 iab
⎢ R⎥ ⎢ p cc ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ s ⎥
controllers are used to regulate the dc-bus voltage and reactive ⎣ vbc ⎦ = ⎣ vbc ⎦ − ⎣ 0 Rf 0 ⎦ ⎣ ibc ⎦
power. The output of these controllers is the corresponding ref- R
vca p cc
vca 0 0 Rf isca
erence currents that serve as input for the MRAC stage. With this
configuration, the proposed controller can effectively regulate ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ s ⎤
Lf 0 0 iab
d
the desired control variables seamlessly while adapting to ex- − ⎣ 0 Lf 0 ⎦ ⎣ isbc ⎦ (1)
ternal nonlinear perturbations, e.g., frequency variations. Com- dt s
0 0 Lf ica
pared to the state-of-the-art active rectifier control schemes, the
R R R T
proposed MRAC requires minimum tuning as it only requires where, [vab vbc vca ] are the line-to-line rectifier voltages,
the tuning of the outer loop controllers. As a result, the pro- [iab ibc ica ] are the virtual line-to-line currents (i.e., isab = isa −
s s s T
posed controller can handle the aggressive frequency changes pcc pcc pcc T
isb , isbc = isb − isc , and isca = isc − isa ) [24], [25], [vab vbc vca ]
produced by the turbine of the aircraft with minimum overshoot
are the line-to-line voltages at the PCC, and Lf and Rf are the
and settling time.
inductance and parasitic resistance of the L filter, respectively.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. In Section II,
The system represented in (1) is then transformed into the
the modeling of the active rectifier is described. In Section III,
dq0 synchronous frame of reference using the following matrix
the classic model-based dq−control scheme implemented as
transformation [26]–[29]
performance benchmark for the proposed controller is ex- ⎡   ⎤
plained. In Section IV, the proposed MRAC is developed, cos (θ) cos θ − 2π cos θ − 4π
2⎢  3
 3
⎥
and its steady-state and dynamic performance are experimen- T = ⎣ sin (θ) sin θ − 2π sin θ − 4π ⎦ (2)
3 3 3
tally evaluated in Section V. Finally, Section VI concludes this 1 1 1
article. 2 2 2

where the instantaneous phase angle θ = ωt is obtained using

II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND MODELING
The schematic diagram of the two-level voltage-source-
converter (2L-VSC) implemented as an active rectifier in this ar-
ticle is shown in Fig. 1. The converter is connected to a variable-
frequency/constant-voltage three-phase programmable grid em-
ulator through an inductive L filter. Two line-to-line voltage and
three line current measurements are taken from the so-called
point-of-common-coupling (PCC). While the dc-bus voltage is
measured at the terminals of the dc-bus filtering capacitor Cf ,
which is connected in parallel with a resistive load. Considering
p cc
a phase-locked-loop (PLL) with vab as reference. The PLL
structure implemented in this article is shown in Fig. 2. Unlike a
conventional PI-based PLL [30], the so-called direct PLL [24],
applicable only to three-phases systems, solely requires the tun-
ning of a low-pass filter and a rate-limiter. The function of the
low-pass filter is to smooth the incoming ωt signal before taking
its time derivative. Consequently, its cutoff frequency can be set
to approximately two times the maximum expected frequency
of the input voltage. On the other hand, the rate-limiter prevents
spikes in the frequency estimation, and its slew rate should be
set to the maximum Hz/s expected in the system.

Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 BENZAQUEN AND MIRAFZAL: SEAMLESS DYNAMICS FOR WILD-FREQUENCY ACTIVE RECTIFIERS IN MORE ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT
Fig. 3. Model-based dq−control scheme block diagram. Output dc-bus
voltage v d c control loop highlighted in blue, and reactive power q control
loop highlighted in green.
By applying the dq0 transformation presented in (2) to (1),
the system can now be expressed as
diL q
vqR = vqp cc − Rf iL q − Lf − Lf ωiL d
dt
diL d
vdR = vdp cc − Rf iL d − Lf + Lf ωiL q .
dt
Finally, it is important to notice that (3) and (4) hold the same
form for the phase voltage and line currents as well. How-
ever, for practical hardware implementation, the virtual line-
to-line current formulation is preferred, as it suppresses any
common-mode noise present in the line current measurements.
III. CLASSIC MODEL-BASED dq−CONTROL SCHEME
The model-based dq−control scheme is a widely imple-
mented dc-bus voltage and reactive power controller for active
rectifiers [31]–[34]. It is formulated in the dq0 synchronous
frame of reference, as shown in Fig. 3. Here, the active and
reactive power at the PCC are defined as
1  p cc
p= vd iL d + vqp cc iL q
2
1  p cc
q= v iL d − vdp cc iL q
2 q
where, the 1/2 coefficient is a consequence of using the line-to-
line voltages and virtual line-to-line currents to compute √ p and
q. To clarify, given that the line-to-line√ quantities are 3 times
√ tive control law, whose adaptive gains are updated using a spe-
their phase equivalents, i.e. VL L = 3Vph and IL L = 3Iph .
The incorporation of these relationships in (5) and (6) returns
the coefficient back to the √ √ 3/2, since a factor of 3 is
original
obtained from VL L IL L = 3Vph 3Iph = 3Vph Iph . That be-
ing said, when the reference frame is locked to the voltage at the
PCC, i.e., vdp cc = 0, the active and reactive power can be sim-
plified to p = vqp cc iL q /2 and q = vqp cc iL d /2. This, allows p and
q to be controlled independently with iL q and iL d , respectively.
Likewise, the dc-bus voltage vdc can be regulated with iL q as p
and vdc are proportional. As a result, two PI-based control loops
can be implemented to regulate vdc and q, as shown in Fig. 3.
The inputs variables for the model-based dq−control scheme
are the three-phase line-to-line voltages at the PCC, the three
Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7137
line currents, and vdc . Initially, the outer-loops of the controller,
see Fig. 3, compute the desired irLef r ef
q and iL d based on the vdc
r ef r ef
and q errors. Subsequently, iL q and iL d are compared with their
measured counterparts, i.e., iL q and iL d . The resulting current
error signals are then fed to the model of the plant using (3)
and (4) to obtain the desired vdR and vqR that the active rectifier
should synthesize after vdp cc and vqp cc are added as feedforward
voltages. Finally, vdR and vqR are normalized by vdc and then used
directly to generate a space-vector PWM (SVPWM) switching
pattern.
Assuming the model-based dq−control scheme is designed
based on the linear differential equations (3) and (4) in con-
junction with (5) and (6); the constant gains of the inner control
loop are set using the parameters of the system and the input
angular frequency, i.e., Rf , Lf , and ω. In a MEA with variable-
frequency, ω varies in a wide range, thus degrading the perfor-
mance and potentially jeopardizing the stability of the controller
when the ±ωLf gains are assumed constant. In addition, the pa-
rameters Rf and Lf that define the remaining coefficients and
(3) gains are subject to parameter variations due to temperature,
core saturation, component degradation, among others. As a re-
(4) sult, the concept of an adaptive controller that does not require
the knowledge of the parameters of the system and can adap-
tively adjust its gains to accommodate any frequency variation
can be seen as the next immediate step in the state-of-the-art for
variable-frequency active rectifiers.
IV. SEAMLESS DYNAMICS MRAC SCHEME FOR
ACTIVE RECTIFIERS
In this section, the seamless dynamics direct MRAC scheme
for variable-frequency active rectifiers is developed in the dq0
synchronous frame of reference using (3)–(6) as the main mod-
eling equations. The objectives of this control scheme are to
r ef
regulate the dc-bus voltage to a reference voltage vdc and also
provide a unity power factor with near-sinusoidal input line
currents. The detailed block diagram of the proposed MRAC
(5) scheme is depicted in Fig. 4. First, the dc-bus and reactive power
PI-control loops are explained using similar concepts as the ones
(6) presented in Section III for the model-based dq−controller. Sec-
ond, the MRAC algorithm implemented as a substitution for the
inner current control loops is developed based on the command
generator tracker concept (CGT) [23], which defines the adap-
cific set of adaptation laws. Finally, the stability of the proposed
adaptive control algorithm is studied using a Lyapunov approach
which involves: 1) finding a positive definite Lyapunov candi-
date V , and 2) evaluating the closed-loop stability by analyzing
the sign of its time derivative V̇ .
A. DC-Bus and Reactive Power Control Loops
The proposed MRAC scheme is based on (3) and (4), which
can can be written as state-space model
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)
(7)
y(t) = Cx(t)
 7138 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2020

Fig. 4. Detailed block diagram of the proposed MRAC for variable-frequency active rectifiers.

where x(t) = [ iL q iL d ]T is the state vector, u(t) = command r(t). Then the adaptive control law based on the
[ Δvq Δvd ]T is the input vector, and y(t) = x(t) is the CGT approach is given as [23]
output vector. Here, the voltage drops in the inductive filter
u(t) = K̂e (t)e(t) + K̂x (t)ym (t) + K̂r (t)r(t) (10)
are defined as Δvq = vqp cc − vqR and Δvd = vdp cc − vdR . In
addition, the state and output matrices can be expressed as where e(t) = ym (t) − y(t) is the output tracking error and

Rf 
1  K̂e (t), K̂x (t), and K̂r (t) are the adaptive gains; which can
− Lf −ω Lf 0
A= ,B = . (8) be concatenated to simplify later computations as
ω
R
− L ff 0 L1f 
K̂(t) = K̂e (t) K̂x (t) K̂r (t) . (11)
Based on (7), the MRAC algorithm can only be designed to
control iL q and iL d . As a result, to regulate vdc and q, two PI- Correspondingly, e(t), ym (t), and r(t) can be expressed in
control loops are implemented in conjunction with the MRAC vector form as
⎡ ⎤
algorithm as shown in Fig. 4. The outputs of these PI-controllers e(t)
are irLef r ef
q and iL d , which consider that vdc can be regulated ⎢ ⎥
ψ(t) = ⎣ ym (t) ⎦ (12)
with iL q , while the reactive power q can be controlled with
iL d . These assumptions are based in (5) and (6) when vdp cc = 0 r(t)
as explained for the model-based dq−controller in Section III. which allows the control law (10) to be written in a compact
Finally, irLef r ef
q and iL d serve as the input reference vector form as
r ef r ef T
r(t) = [ iL q iL d ] to the MRAC algorithm.
u(t) = K̂(t)ψ(t). (13)
B. Adaptive Current Control Here, the concatenated gain K̂(t) is defined as the sum
The main objective of the adaptive current control is to match of a proportional gain Kp (t) and an integral gain Ki (t),
the response of iL q and iL d of the system described by (7) so i.e. K̂(t) = Kp (t) + Ki (t). Each gain is adapted using the
it follows the response of a predesign reference model, whose following adaptations laws:
input are irLef r ef r ef r ef T
q and iL d , i.e. r(t) = [ iL q iL d ] . The reference
model is a second-order system designed such that a step input Kp (t) = e(t)ψ(t)T T̄
 (14)
to the model would cause its outputs to respond with a specific
rise time, overshoot, and settling time. Ki (t) = e(t)ψ(t)T T dt
The current control loop falls into the category of a direct
adaptive control scheme in which no effort is made to identify where T̄ ≥ 0 and T > 0 are positive definite and positive
the parameters of the system, i.e., Rf and Lf . Instead, a specific semidefinite adaptation coefficient matrices. For simplicity, T̄
control law is directly adjusted to minimize the error between and T can be set to T̄ = γp I and T = γi I, where I is the identity
the system and model outputs. For a reference model defined as matrix. Under this formulation, γp ≥ 0 and γi > 0 can be seen
as adaptation coefficients, whose tuning process is outlined in
ẋm (t) = Am xm (t) + Bm r(t) Section IV. D.
(9)
ym (t) = Cm xm (t) Finally, the sufficient conditions for asymptotic tracking are
1) the parameters of the system (9) are assumed to bounded,
where ym (t) = xm (t) = [ im m T
L q iL d ] is the desired response 2) all possible pairs of A and B are controllable, 3) all possi-
T
for x(t) = [ iL q iL d ] to the current reference set point ble pairs of A and C are observable, 4) the reference model is

Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 BENZAQUEN AND MIRAFZAL: SEAMLESS DYNAMICS FOR WILD-FREQUENCY ACTIVE RECTIFIERS IN MORE ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT
Fig. 5. General block diagram of a direct model reference adaptive
controller with plant feedforward augmentation.
assumed to be bounded-input/bounded-state stable, 5) there ex-
ists a solution for the CGT problem, and 6) the system is almost
strictly positive real (ASPR) and a positive definite constant gain
matrix exists such that the closed-loop transfer function of the
system is strictly positive real (SPR) [23]. For the specific case
of the system presented in Fig. 1; condition 1 is satisfied since
all the parameters of the system are positive and bounded, given
their physical properties. Conditions 2 and 3 are also satisfied
as the system can be designed with the appropriate number of
sensors and outputs such that it is controllable and observable.
In addition, condition 4 can be achieved by selecting a stable
system as a reference model. Whereas, condition 5 is guaranteed
by the existence of matrices B −1 (Am − A) and B −1 Bm [23].
Finally, since the SPR condition can only be satisfied under
certain parameter variation scenarios, condition 6 is satisfied
by implementing an augmented plant with feedforward com-
pensator topology, as shown in Fig. 5, to guarantee stability and
asymptotic tracking [23]. Here, the augmented system described
by matrices As , Bs , and Cs can be implemented as a transfer
function ks /(1 + τ s), as depicted in Fig. 4.
C. Stability Analysis
The stability of the adaptive current control scheme can
be proven by analyzing the sign of the time derivative of the
following quadratic Lyapunov function:
V (t) = e(t)T P e(t)
   T 
(15)
+ tr Ki (t) − K̃ T −1 Ki (t) − K̃
where “tr” denotes trace, P is a positive definite symmetric
matrix, and K̃ is dummy gain matrix only used in V (t) to study
the stability of the controller. If the system is considered to be
ASPR, then the time derivative of V (t) can be written as [23]
V̇ (t) = ė(t)T P e(t) + e(t)T P ė(t)
 
+ 2e(t)T Ki (t) − K̃ r(t) (16)
− 2e(t)T e(t)r(t)T T̄ r(t).
Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7139
Here, V̇ (t) is not necessarily negative definite or semidefinite.
Nonetheless, by applying the Gronwall–Bellman Lemma [13]
it can be shown that the Lyapunov function V (t) is bounded,
which translates into e(t) and Ki (t) being bounded as well. As
a result, the modified invariance principle for nonlinear nonau-
tonomous systems gives the following theorem of stability for
the proposed adaptive algorithm: assuming the system to be
controlled is ASPR, which guarantees the existence of two pos-
itive definite matrices P and Q, with ATm P + P Am = −Q; and
considering T̄ and T are positive define and positive semidefi-
nite matrices. Then all states and gains of the adaptive system
defined by (10)–(14) are bounded, and the output tracking error
e(t) vanishes asymptotically [23].
D. MRAC Design Procedure
The general procedure to design the MRAC for active recti-
fiers, in MEA applications, is outlined in this subsection.
1) Feedforward Compensator Design: Advanced optimiza-
tion methods based on Kharitonov polynomials can be
implemented to determine the exact values of ks and τ as
described in [35]. However, for practical rapid implemen-
tation τ can be set to τ = 1/(2πfc ), where fc is the maxi-
mum input frequency of the system, e.g., 800 Hz√for MEA
applications. While ks can be set to ks = 1/( 2Vbase ),
where Vbase is the rated line-to-line input voltage of the
system.
2) Adaptation Gains Selection: For multi-input multi-output
systems, the derivation of analytical expressions to com-
pute the adaptation gains can be a complex task. A prac-
tical approach is to initially set γp = 0, γi = ks and in-
crease γi until the system achieves the desired dynamic
performance. Once the value of γi is set, γp can be com-
puted as γp = γi /τs , where τs is the settling time of the
reference model [23].
3) Reference Model Selection: The order of the reference
model described by Am , Bm , and Cm can be selected to
be equal or lower than the order of the system. Subse-
quently, the coefficients of Am , Bm , and Cm are selected
such that the reference model achieves the desired dy-
namic step response in terms of overshoot and settling
time. One design approach is to set the reference model
as
− τ1m 0 1
0
τm
Am = , Bm = (17)
0 − τ1m 0 1
τm
where, τm is the time constant of the model and Cm = I.
Using these definitions for Am , Bm , and Cm results in a
model whose steady-state values are unitary and have a
settling time of 4τm [36].
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The performance of the proposed MRAC scheme using
the model-based dq−controller as a benchmark was veri-
fied experimentally using a custom-built laboratory-scale SiC-
MOSFET-based 2L-VSC as shown in Fig. 6. The converter
 7140 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2020

Fig. 6. Experimental verification hardware setup.

uses a six-pack SiC-MOSFET module manufactured by CREE

(CCS020M12CM2) rated at 1.2 kV/20 A with a CGD15FB45P
gate driver from the same manufacturer. Notice, that the voltage Fig. 7. Transients responses used to tune the PI outer-loop controller
rating of the devices was selected to operate at both 270 and gains: (a) load step change and (b) reactive power reference step
540 V. However, the experimental validation in this article was change.
conducted at 270 V since this voltage level is currently used in
modern commercial MEA such as the Boeing 787 and the Air- TABLE I
bus A380. Also, military aircraft, e.g., F-22, use a 270V-based PROPORTIONAL AND INTEGRAL GAINS FOR THE DC-BUS
AND REACTIVE POWER PI-CONTROL LOOPS
power system [37]. Finally, the converter is equipped with a
Lf = 1 mH inductive low-pass filter with an inherent parasitic
resistance of Rf = 0.25 Ω, a dc-bus precharge circuit, and two
200 μF/360 V dc-bus electrolytic capacitors connected in series.

A. Hardware Implementation and Controller

Gain Selection
TABLE II
The control schemes were digitally implemented using a PLL PARAMETERS FOR BOTH CONTROLLERS
dSPACE MicroLabBox 1202 with a PWM switching frequency
of 20 kHz and sampling time of 50 μs. The execution time of
the proposed MRAC scheme is 28.08 μs. The 2L-VSC was
connected to a 12 kW Primate Power programmable grid emu-
lator with an input line-to-line voltage of 115 V at a variable-
frequency between 100-400 Hz, being 400 Hz the maximum
output frequency at which the hardware can operate. The PLL
structure implemented for the two controllers is described in
for the proposed MRAC and model-based dq−controller are
Fig. 2, and its parameters are outlined in Table II. The converter
shown in Fig. 8. In all cases, the line currents are in phase with
was loaded at 1 kW using a resistive load with a dc-bus voltage
the phase-to-neutral voltages; thus resulting in a unity power
set-point of 270 V and unity power factor.
factor operation. In addition, at 1 kW load and approximately
The tuning of the gains for the dc-bus and reactive power
2% voltage THD, both controllers exhibit similar line current
PI-control loops (i.e., kp1 , ki1 , kp2 , and ki2 ) was executed such
THDs (< 3%) at 100 and 400 Hz. Moreover, for partial loading
that both controllers exhibit a similar dynamic performance at a
conditions (400 W and 100 Hz), the two control schemes still
fixed input frequency. A load step change of 50% was performed
show similar line current THDs, with 4.41% and 4.77% for the
to tune the vdc control loops, see Fig. 7(a). Whereas, a 250 VAr
MRAC and model-based dq−controller, respectively.
step change in qr ef was implemented to tune the reactive power
In summary, Fig. 8 corroborates that the compared controllers
loops, see Fig. 7(b). In both cases, the gains of the controllers
exhibit similar line current THDs. In fact, the current THD is
were adjusted to achieve similar overshoots and settling times
independent of the controller as it mainly depends on the con-
ts . The resulting gains are outlined in Table I and remained
verter’s topology, filter design, switching frequency, and load.
unaltered throughout the experiments for both control schemes.
For this reason, the THD data presented in this article is con-
sidered only as a power quality index and not as a performance
B. Steady-State Waveforms and Frequency Spectra
indicator. The comparison of the controllers is primarily focused
The steady-state waveforms (van and ian ), line current fre- on their dynamic performance, which is presented in the next
quency spectra, and phase-to-neutral voltage harmonic spectra subsections.

Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 BENZAQUEN AND MIRAFZAL: SEAMLESS DYNAMICS FOR WILD-FREQUENCY ACTIVE RECTIFIERS IN MORE ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 7141

Fig. 8. Steady-state phase-to-neutral voltages, line currents, line current frequency spectra, and low-order harmonic spectra of the phase-to-neutral
voltages at 1 kW: (a), (b), and (c) model-based dq−controller at 100 Hz; (d), (e), and (f) MRAC at 100 Hz; (g), (h), and (i) model-based dq−controller
at 400 Hz; (j), (k), and (l) MRAC at 400 Hz.

frequency is from 100 to 400 Hz; conversely, for a frequency

C. Dynamic Performance Under Frequency
Step Changes
In order to verify the dynamic performance of the pro-
posed MRAC scheme using the model-based dq−controller as a
benchmark, two frequency step changes of Δf = ±300 Hz, i.e.,
100 → 400 Hz and 400 → 100 Hz, were applied to the system.
In terms of the model-based dq−controller, the gains ωLf and
−ωLf , shown in Fig. 3, are a function of the input frequency
of the system. Consequently, the dynamic performance of the
aforementioned control scheme was analyzed using three dis-
tinct tuning cases: 1) f is taken from a PLL, 2) f = 100 Hz; and
3) f = 400 Hz. For each case, the dc-bus voltage and reactive
power were recorded at a sampling frequency of 20 kHz using
the dSpace ControlDesk acquisition toolbox. In addition, two
limit lines are plotted in every vdc plot as the minimum and max-
imum voltages permitted by the MIL-STD-704 standard [38].
Fig. 9 shows the performance of the model-based
dq−controller. Here, Fig. 9(a) and (b) show the transient re-
sponse of vdc and reactive power q for frequency step changes
of Δf = ±300 Hz when the gains ωLf and −ωLf are dynam-
ically updated with ω taken from a PLL. As can be seen, even
with frequency tracking, the overshoot peak values of vdc and
q are not satisfactory for the model-based dq−controller. These
high peak values are a consequence of including the PLL dy-
namics into the inner current control loops. Furthermore, when
tuned for a constant ω = 2πf with f = 100 Hz, the model-based
dq−controller exhibits a poor dynamic performance if the step
step in the opposite direction, the dynamic performance of the
controller improves, as depicted in Fig. 9(c) and (d). This analy-
sis also applies to Fig. 9(e) and (f) where the controller performs
better when the frequency is increased to 400 Hz and the tuning
has f = 400 Hz.
In general, Fig. 9 demonstrates that for a variable-frequency
system, a constant or variable-frequency tuning for ωLf and
−ωLf results in a poor dynamic performance of the model-
based dq−controller. Based on the previous analysis, it is clear
that for a variable-frequency system such as MEA, an adaptive
controller is required in order to achieve acceptable dynamic
performance. Consequently, with the implementation of the pro-
posed MRAC scheme, both vdc and q remain completely regu-
lated and with seamless dynamics under variable-frequency op-
eration, as depicted in Fig. 10(a) and (b). Furthermore, Fig. 10(c)
and (d) show the dynamic characteristic of two of the 12 adap-
tive gains in matrix K̂(t), which demonstrates how the gains
adjust their values in accordance with the frequency changes of
the system.
A summary of the dynamic performance indicators, i.e.,
overshoot and settling time, for the MRAC and model-based
dq−controller is outlines in Table III. As can be seen, the MRAC
reduced the vdc overshoot from 36% to 2% for a frequency step
increase, and from 13% to 1% for a step decrease when com-
pared to the variable-frequency tuning model-based dq−control
scheme. Moreover, the q overshoot was reduced by over
1 kVAr for a frequency step increase, and over 4.6 kVAr for a

Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 7142 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2020

TABLE III
DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE PROPOSED MRAC SCHEME AND THE MODEL-BASED dq−CONTROLLER

Fig. 10. Dynamic performance of the proposed MRAC under a 300 Hz

step change in the supply frequency: (a) v d c , (b) reactive power q,
(c) adaptive gains K̂ 1 3 , and (d) K̂ 2 3 .

step decrease. On the other hand, in terms of the settling time,

Fig. 9. Dynamic performance of the model-based dq−controller under
a 300 Hz step change in the supply frequency: (a) v d c and (b) reactive
power q regulation with variable frequency tuning, (c) v d c and (d) reactive
power q regulation with the controller tuned for 100 Hz, (e) v d c , and
(f) reactive power q regulation with the controller tuned for 400 Hz.
the proposed MRAC shows practically a null settling time for
all the analyzed transients; thus offering a seamless transition
between frequencies, which is crucial for MEA applications.
Finally, Fig. 11 depicts a more detailed comparison of the
seamless dynamics capability of the proposed MRAC when
compared to the model-based dq−controller with variable-
frequency ωLf and −ωLf gain adjustment. Here, the line-
to-neutral voltage va , line current ia , and vdc are shown for
the 100 → 400 Hz and 400 → 100 Hz frequency step changes.
It can be seen from Fig. 11 that once again the proposed MRAC

Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 BENZAQUEN AND MIRAFZAL: SEAMLESS DYNAMICS FOR WILD-FREQUENCY ACTIVE RECTIFIERS IN MORE ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 7143

Fig. 11. Dynamic performance under a step change in the supply frequency: (a) model-based dq−controller, 100–400 Hz, (b) model-based
dq−controller, 400–100 Hz, (c) MRAC, 100–400 Hz, and (d) MRAC, 400–100 Hz.

Fig. 12. Dynamic and steady-state performance of the proposed MRAC under distorted PCC conditions. Dynamic response for a frequency step
change with 5% content of 5th harmonic in the PCC voltage: (a) from 100 to 400 Hz and (b) from 400 to 100 Hz. Steady-state performance with 5%
content of 5th harmonic in the PCC voltage: (c) and (d) v a , ia , and v d c at 100 and 400 Hz, respectively; (e) and (g) ia frequency spectrum at 100
and 400 Hz, respectively; (f) and (h) low-order harmonic content of v a at 100 Hz and 400 Hz, respectively.

outperforms the model-based dq−controller in terms of dc-bus
regulation and unity power factor. Notice that, as demonstrated
in Fig. 9(a) and (b), vdc returns to its reference value after the
frequency transient finalizes.
D. Performance Under Abnormal Grid Conditions
The performance of the proposed MRAC scheme under dis-
torted ac voltage was analyzed by intentionally adding a 5%
5th harmonic component to the PCC voltage. Fig. 12(c)–(h)
depict the steady-state performance at 100 and 400 Hz.
Whereas, Fig. 12(a) and (b) shows the dynamic performance
for a frequency step change of Δf = ±300 Hz. In terms of the
steady-state performance, Fig. 12 demonstrates that the pro-
posed MRAC is able to regulate vdc and maintain a unity power
factor when the voltage at the PCC is distorted. At the same
time, when compared to the nondistorted operation, see Fig. 8,
the proposed controller shows an increase in the line current

Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 7144
Fig. 13. MARC performance with unbalanced input voltage: (a) dy-
namic performance for a frequency step change of 100 → 400 Hz,
(b) steady-state line-to-line voltage waveforms, and (c) steady-state line
current waveforms.
THD when the voltage at the PCC is distorted. In regards to
the dynamic performance, Fig. 12(a) and (b) corroborate the
seamless dynamics characteristic of the proposed MRAC as it
regulates vdc and maintains a unity power factor even under the
presence of a distorted PCC voltage.
Finally, Fig. 13 demonstrates the performance of the pro-
posed controller under a 6.80% input voltage imbalance. Here,
Fig. 13(c) demonstrates how even under a severe voltage imbal-
ance (> 5%, see IEEE Standard 1159 [39]), the proposed MRAC
maintains a current imbalance below 4%, thus complying with
international power quality standards, such as the IEEE Stan-
dard 1159 [39] and NEMA MG-1 [40]. Furthermore, Fig. 13(a)
depicts the dynamic performance for a frequency step change
of Δf = 300 Hz, showing how the controller is able to regulate
vdc and maintain a unity power factor even with an unbalanced
grid.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this article, a seamless dynamics MRAC scheme for wild-
frequency active rectifiers in MEA was presented. The proposed
controller was implemented in a 2L-VSC, whose main objec-
tive is to regulate the dc-bus voltage and operate at unity power
factor while drawing sinusoidal currents from the PCC. Exper-
imental testing was carried out to demonstrate the superiority
of the MRAC using a classical PI model-based dq−controller
as a benchmark for comparison. The steady-state performance
of the MRAC and model-based dq−controllers was analyzed
at different input frequencies, while the dynamic performance
was studied under frequency step changes. The experimental
Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2020
results provided in this article demonstrated that in terms of
the steady-state performance, both controllers performed simi-
larly, maintaining unity power factor operation, and minimum
vdc steady-state error; while preserving a low line current THD.
Regarding the dynamic performance, the MRAC was able to
achieve seamless dynamics due to its ability to adaptively adjust
its gains under wild-frequency operation. Whereas, the classic
model-based dq−control scheme failed in providing an accept-
able dynamic performance regardless of its tuning settings. In
addition, it was demonstrated that the proposed MRAC main-
tained its seamless dynamics under distorted and unbalanced
PCC voltage conditions. Finally, given its sound steady-state
performance and seamless dynamics, it could be concluded that
the proposed MRAC scheme can be considered as a competi-
tive alternative to classical PI-based linear control methods for
wild-frequency active rectifiers in MEA applications.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Rajashekara, “More electric aircraft trends [Technology Leaders],” vol.
2, no. 4, pp. 4–39, Dec. 2014.
[2] B. Sarlioglu and C. T. Morris, “More electric aircraft: Review, challenges,
and opportunities for commercial transport aircraft,” vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 54–
64, Jun. 2015.
[3] R. Abdel-Fadil, A. Eid, and M. Abdel-Salam, “Fuzzy logic control of
modern aircraft electrical power system during transient and steady-state
operating conditions,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Power Electron., Drives
Energy Syst., Dec. 2014, pp. 1–6.
[4] J. Sun, Z. Bing, and K. J. Karimi, “Small-signal modeling of multipulse
rectifiers for more-electric aircraft applications,” in Proc. IEEE Power
Electron. Spec. Conf., Jun. 2008, pp. 302–308.
[5] B. Singh, B. N. Singh, A. Chandra, K. Al-Haddad, A. Pandey, and
D. P. Kothari, “A review of three-phase improved power quality ac–dc
converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 641–660,
Jun. 2004.
[6] S. Yin, K. J. Tseng, R. Simanjorang, Y. Liu, and J. Pou, “A 50-kw high-
frequency and high-efficiency sic voltage source inverter for more electric
aircraft,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 9124–9134,
Nov. 2017.
[7] T. Friedli, M. Hartmann, and J. W. Kolar, “The essence of three-phase
PFC rectifier systems—Part II,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29,
no. 2, pp. 543–560, Feb. 2014.
[8] J. Rodriguez and P. Cortes, Predictive Control of Power Converters and
Electrical Drives, vol. 40. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2012.
[9] M. P. Kazmierkowski and L. Malesani, “Current control techniques for
three-phase voltage-source PWM converters: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 691–703, Oct. 1998.
[10] A. I. Maswood and F. Liu, “A unity power factor front-end rectifier with
hysteresis current control,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 21, no. 1,
pp. 69–76, Mar. 2006.
[11] H. C. Choi and M. J. Youn, “A soft-switched, high-frequency resonant
rectifier and characteristics of the controlled system,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 161–172, Jan. 1997.
[12] R.-J. Wai and Y. Yang, “Design of backstepping direct power control
for three-phase PWM rectifier,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 55, no. 3,
pp. 3160–3173, May/Jun. 2019.
[13] J. Rodriguez et al., “State of the art of finite control set model predictive
control in power electronics,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 9, no. 2,
pp. 1003–1016, May 2013.
[14] M. Aguirre, S. Kouro, C. A. Rojas, J. Rodriguez, and J. I. Leon, “Switching
frequency regulation for FCS-MPC based on a period control approach,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 5764–5773, Jul. 2018.
[15] R. P. Aguilera, P. Lezana, and D. E. Quevedo, “Finite-control-set model
predictive control with improved steady-state performance,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Informat., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 658–667, May 2013.
[16] S. Maiti, C. Chakraborty, Y. Hori, and M. C. Ta, “Model reference adap-
tive controller-based rotor resistance and speed estimation techniques for
vector controlled induction motor drive utilizing reactive power,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 594–601, Feb. 2008.
 BENZAQUEN AND MIRAFZAL: SEAMLESS DYNAMICS FOR WILD-FREQUENCY ACTIVE RECTIFIERS IN MORE ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT
[17] A. V. Ravi Teja, C. Chakraborty, S. Maiti, and Y. Hori, “A new model
reference adaptive controller for four quadrant vector controlled induction
motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 3757–3767,
Oct. 2012.
[18] K.-K. Shyu, M.-J. Yang, Y.-M. Chen, and Y.-F. Lin, “Model reference
adaptive control design for a shunt active-power-filter system,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 97–106, Jan. 2008.
[19] R. M. Milasi, A. F. Lynch, and Y. W. Li, “Adaptive control of a volt-
age source converter for power factor correction,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 4767–4779, Oct. 2013.
[20] Y. Yin, J. Liu, W. Luo, L. Wu, S. Vazquez, J. I. Leon, and L. G. Franquelo,
“Adaptive control for three-phase power converters with disturbance rejec-
tion performance,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.: Syst., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2018.2876322.
[21] J. Kim, H. h. Choi, and J. Jung, “MRAC-based voltage controller for
three-phase CVCF inverters to attenuate parameter uncertainties under
critical load conditions,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., to be published,
doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2019.2912393.
[22] G. Escobar, D. Chevreau, R. Ortega, and E. Mendes, “An adaptive
passivity-based controller for a unity power factor rectifier,” IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technol., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 637–644, Jul. 2001.
[23] H. Kaufman, I. Barkana, and K. Sobel, Direct Adaptive Control Algo-
rithms: Theory and Applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag,
2012.
[24] D. S. Ochs, B. Mirafzal, and P. Sotoodeh, “A method of seamless tran-
sitions between grid-tied and stand-alone modes of operation for utility-
interactive three-phase inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 50, no. 3,
pp. 1934–1941, May/Jun. 2014.
[25] A. Adib, B. Mirafzal, X. Wang, and F. Blaabjerg, “On stability of voltage
source inverters in weak grids,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 4427–4439,
Jan. 2018.
[26] P. C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk, S. D. Sudhoff, and S. Pekarek, Analysis
of Electric Machinery and Drive Systems, vol. 75. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley, 2013.
[27] D. W. Novotny and T. A. Lipo, Vector Control and Dynamics of AC Drives,
vol. 1. London, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.
[28] D. G. Holmes and T. A. Lipo, Pulse Width Modulation for Power Convert-
ers: Principles and Practice, vol. 18. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2003.
[29] V. Blasko and V. Kaura, “A new mathematical model and control of a
three-phase ac–dc voltage source converter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 116–123, Jan. 1997.
[30] S. Golestan, J. M. Guerrero, and J. C. Vasquez, “Three-phase PLLs: A
review of recent advances,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32, no. 3,
pp. 1894–1907, Mar. 2017.
[31] F. Blaabjerg, R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre, and A. V. Timbus, “Overview
of control and grid synchronization for distributed power generation sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1398–1409, Oct. 2006.
[32] J. Rocabert, A. Luna, F. Blaabjerg, and P. Rodrı́guez, “Control of power
converters in AC microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27,
no. 11, pp. 4734–4749, Nov. 2012.
[33] A. Timbus, M. Liserre, R. Teodorescu, P. Rodriguez, and F. Blaabjerg,
“Evaluation of current controllers for distributed power generation sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 654–664,
Mar. 2009.
[34] J. Benzaquen, M. B. Shadmand, and B. Mirafzal, “Ultrafast rectifier for
variable-frequency applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 9903–9911,
Jan. 2019.
[35] B. R. Barmish, C. V. Hollot, F. J. Kraus, and R. Tempo, “Extreme point
results for robust stabilization of interval plants with first-order com-
pensators,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 707–714,
Jun. 1992.
Authorized licensed use limited to: MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on October 22,2020 at 04:48:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7145
[36] K. Ogata and Y. Yang, Modern Control Engineering, vol. 4. Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2002.
[37] V. Madonna, P. Giangrande, and M. Galea, “Electrical power generation in
aircraft: Review, challenges, and opportunities,” vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 646–659,
Sep. 2018.
[38] Aircraft Electric Power Characteristics, Department of Defense Interface
Standard (MIL-STD-704F), 2004.
[39] IEEE Recommended Practice for Monitoring Electric Power Quality,
IEEE Standard 1159-2009, Jun. 2009.
[40] Motors and Generators, NEMA Standard MG 1-2006, 2006.
Joseph Benzaquen (S’17) received the B.Sc.
and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering
from the Universidad Simón Bolı́var, Caracas,
Venezuela, in 2011 and 2015, respectively. He
is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering with Kansas State Univer-
sity, Manhattan, KS, USA.
He is currently a Research Associate with
the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering, Power Electronics and Autonomous
Systems (PEAS) Research Laboratory, Kansas
State University, Manhattan, KS, USA. His research interests include
power electronics, power converters for e-mobility, electric drives, and
power systems.
Behrooz Mirafzal (S’01–M’05–SM’07) received
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA, in
2005.
From 2005 to 2008, he was with Rockwell
Automation/Allen-Bradley, Mequon, WI, USA, as
a Senior Development/Project Engineer, where
he was involved in research and development
related to motor-drive systems. From 2008 to
2011, he was an Assistant Professor with Florida
International University, Miami, FL, USA. He is
currently an Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
He has authored and coauthored more than 90 articles in professional
journals and conferences and holds four U.S. patents. His current re-
search interests include applications of power electronics in modern
energy conversion systems and microgrids.
Dr. Mirafzal was the recipient of the 2008 second best IEEE Industry
Applications Society Transactions Prize Paper Award published in 2007,
the best 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society Transactions Prize Pa-
per Award published in 2011, and a 2014 U.S. National Science Foun-
dation (NSF) CAREER Award. He has served as the Technical Co-
Chair of the IEEE IEMDC Conference in 2009 and currently serves as
an Associate Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICA-
TIONS, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, and the IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS.