3684 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO.

5, MAY 2020

DC Voltage Control Strategy of Three-Terminal

Medium-Voltage Power Electronic
Transformer-Based Soft Normally Open Points
Shaodi Ouyang , Member, IEEE, Jinjun Liu , Fellow, IEEE, Yue Yang ,
Xingxing Chen , Student Member, IEEE, Shuguang Song , Student Member, IEEE, and Hongda Wu

Abstract—The power electronic transformer (PET) or

solid-state transformer (SST) is a key technique in the
future distribution grid. One of PET’s future possible appli-
cation is the soft normally open points (SNOP) to handle
the power and voltage challenge brought by the renewable
energy sources. In this paper, a PET-based three-terminal
medium-voltage SNOP topology is proposed. The topology
consists of three cascade H-bridge (CHB) stages and a mul-
tiactive bridge (MAB) stage. The dc voltage control strategy
for the proposed PET-SNOP is studied. Two strategies –
the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy and CHB+MAB strategies
are developed from the existing strategies but they both
have some drawbacks. In order to overcome the drawbacks,
Fig. 1. Future distribution network with SNOP.
a novel dc voltage control strategy—CHB×3+MAB strategy
is proposed, which combines the advantages and avoids the
drawbacks of these two strategies, moreover, it also brings The SNOP can also offer additional functions to the distribution
more flexibility and robustness to the dc voltage control.
The effectiveness of the proposed PET-SNOP topology as grid like energy storage [4], static synchronous compensator [5],
well as the proposed CHB×3+MAB dc voltage control strat- improving the grid’s restoration performance during faults [6],
egy is verified by both simulation and experiment results. etc.
Index Terms—DC voltage control, power electronic trans-
From the view of power electronic topology, the technical
former, soft normally open point, three-terminal. requirement of multiterminal SNOP is the capability of multi-
terminal power transfer and electrical isolation. The power elec-
tronic transformer (PET) [7] or solid-state transformer (SST)
I. INTRODUCTION [8] is an attractive topology for SNOP as it can achieve isola-
HE renewable energy sources raises a lot of challenges to tion through a high-frequency isolation stage instead of several
T the distribution grid like voltage violation, feeder load un-
balancing, intermittent power flow, un-optimized operation, etc.
low-frequency transformers, bringing advantage in efficiency
and system size. In this paper, a three-terminal medium voltage
The feeder power conditioner as shown in Fig. 1, which is also (MV) PET-based SNOP is proposed, whose circuit is shown in
named “soft normally open points” (SNOP) [1] or “soft open Fig. 2. The system consists of three cascaded H-bridge (CHB)
points” (SOP) [2], is a recently proposed solution to these chal- stages and a multi-active bridge (MAB) [9] stage. Each MAB
lenges. The SNOP can provide additional controllable electrical converter connects three CHB modules from three CHB stages
paths among feeders allowing for flexible power flow adjust- and they together form a PET cell as shown in Fig. 3.
ment, which can effectively handle these challenges and in- The power structure of the proposed PET-SNOP features in
crease the penetration rate of renewable energy sources [1]–[3]. symmetrical multiterminal structure and modularized structure,
making it different from the existing three major types of CHB-
Manuscript received July 15, 2018; revised November 10, 2018, Febru- based PETs: the FREEDM/Traction PET with a common low
ary 16, 2019, and May 13, 2019; accepted May 29, 2019. Date of publi- voltage direct current bus (the LV stage is not modernized) [10],
cation June 19, 2019; date of current version January 3, 2020. This work
was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan un- [11], the asymmetrical multiterminal modularized UNIFLEX-
der Grant 2018YFB0905800. (Corresponding author: Shaodi Ouyang.) PM PET [12], [13], and the two-terminal modularized PET [14],
The authors are with the State Key Lab of Electrical Insulation and [15]. The dc voltage control strategy of such a symmetrical
Power Equipment, School of Electrical Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong Uni-
versity, Xi’an 710049, China (e-mail:, oysd1989@stu.xjtu.edu.cn; jjliu@ multiterminal modularized structure has not been studied yet
mail.xjtu.edu.cn; flyeryy@stu.xjtu.edu.cn; xingxingchen@stu.xjtu.edu. thus this paper undertakes this research.
cn; shuguang.song.chine@gmail.com; hongda@stu.xjtu.edu.cn). To achieve dc voltage control of modularized PET, two dc
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. voltage control strategies have been proposed in the existing
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2019.2922915 literatures: 1) the CHB+CHB strategy in [15] and [16] in which
0278-0046 © 2019 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.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
OUYANG et al.: DC VOLTAGE CONTROL STRATEGY OF THREE-TERMINAL MEDIUM-VOLTAGE PET-BASED SNOPS
Fig. 2. Circuit of the proposed three-terminal PET-SNOP.
Fig. 3. Circuit of a PET cell.
the dc voltages are controlled by both CHB stages, meanwhile
the DAB stage do not take responsibility for dc voltage con-
trol; and 2) the CHB+DAB strategy in [12], [17]–[20] in which
the dc voltages are controlled by one CHB stage and the DAB
stage, meanwhile the other CHB do not take responsibility for dc
voltage control. These two strategies can be extended to the pro-
posed three-terminal PET-SNOP as CHB+CHB+CHB strategy
and CHB+MAB strategy. However, they both have drawbacks:
the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy suffers from the cell power mis-
match owing to MAB parameter mismatch; the CHB+MAB
strategy can overcome the MAB parameter mismatch issue but
sacrifices the symmetrical control structure, which will compli-
cate three multiterminal application.
In order to overcome these drawbacks, a novel dc control
strategy: CHB×3+MAB strategy, is proposed in this paper
which combines the advantages, meanwhile avoids the draw-
backs of both strategies. The CHB×3+MAB strategy can also
bring more flexibility and robustness to PET’s dc voltage control
than the existing strategies.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II briefly in-
troduces basis of CHB and MAB. Section III introduces the
CHB+CHB+CHB strategy, CHB+MAB strategy, and the pro-
posed CHB×3+MAB strategy for the three-terminal PET-
SNOP. Section IV shows the simulation results. Sections V and
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3685
Fig. 4. Circuit of the CHB converter.
Fig. 5. Inner current loop of a CHB converter.
Fig. 6. Overall dc voltage control.
VI show the experiment platform and the experiment results.
Section VII concludes this paper.
The naming convention for the PET cell, H-bridge modules,
voltages and currents is “terminal phase+number(X t pn ).” For
example, CELL pn (p = A,B,C; n = 1, 2, . . . , N) consists of
six H-bridges: CHB I pn , CHB I I pn , CHB I I I pn , MAB I pn ,
MAB I I pn , and MAB I I I pn . The MAB converter is marked as
MAB pn . The dc voltages of this cell are marked as Vdc I pn ,
Vdc I I pn , and Vdc I I I pn . The three high-frequency ac square
voltages of the MAB are marked as vM AB I pn , vM AB I I pn , and
vM AB I I I pn . The cell A1 is taken as an example in Fig. 3.
II. BASIC PRINCIPLE OF CHB AND MAB
The ac–dc stage of the proposed PET-SNOP is three-phase
CHB, the circuit is shown in Fig. 4.
The general goal of CHB control is ac current regulation and
dc voltage regulation. A generally used ac control block diagram
of a CHB converter is shown in Fig. 5.
The dc control of a CHB converter generally consists of three
loops, an overall dc voltage loop controls its average (overall)
dc voltage by adjusting the d-axis current command as shown
in Fig. 6; the among-phase power control loop can be used to
3686 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 5, MAY 2020

Fig. 7. Among-phase dc voltage balancing control.

Fig. 10. CHB+CHB+CHB Strategy.

⎧
⎪
⎪
V V
PI = D Cπ IX 3DLC I I δI I (π − δI I )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
V V
+ D C πIX D3 LC I I I δI I I (π − δI I I )
Fig. 8. In-phase dc voltage balancing control. ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ PI I = V D C I I V D C I (−δI I )(π + δI I )
πX3L
. (1)
⎪
⎪ V V
+ D C πI IX 3DLC I I I (δI I I − δI I )(π − δI I I + δI I )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ V V
⎪
⎪ PI I I = D C πIXI I3 LD C I (−δI I I )(π + δI I I )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ V V
+ D C πI IXI 3 LD C I I (δI I − δI I I )(π − δI I + δI I I )

III. DC VOLTAGE CONTROL STRATEGY FOR THE THREE

Fig. 9. Equivalent circuit for the MAB.
balance the dc voltage among phases by zero-sequence voltage
injection [21], [22] or negative-sequence current injection [23]
as shown in Fig. 7. An inner-phase power control loop can be
used to balance all the dc voltages among the phase by adjusting
the amplitude of the modulation wave of the H-bridge converters
within each phases as shown in Fig. 8. It could be seen that 3N
proportional-integral (PI) controllers (1 in Fig. 6, 2 in Fig. 7,
and 3N-3 in Fig. 8) are needed to achieve dc voltage control.
The isolation stage of the proposed PET-SNOP is formed
by MAB converters, whose circuit is shown in Fig. 3. The
Y-equivalent circuit for the MAB is shown in Fig. 9(a), where
three square-wave voltage sources are connected to a common
magnetizing inductor through three inductors [9], [24]. A poly-
gon model could be obtained [9] and further simplified by ne-
glecting the magnetizing inductor [25] as shown in Fig. 9(b).
The terminal powers are determined by the phase shift differ-
ence among the square-wave voltages. The power between any
two terminals can be easily determined by a similar way to DAB
and the overall terminal power can be derived as follows:
TERMINAL MV PET
In this paper, three dc voltage control strategies are dis-
cussed, among which the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy and the
CHB+MAB strategies are developed from existing strategies of
two-terminal PET, and the CHB×3+MAB strategy is proposed
in this paper.
A. CHB+CHB+CHB Strategy
The CHB+CHB+CHB strategy is developed from the
CHB+CHB strategy in [15]. In this strategy, DC I is controlled
by CHB stage I; DC II is controlled by CHB stage II; DC III
is controlled by CHB strategy III; the MAB stage controls the
active power transferred between the three terminals; all the
MABs share the same phase shift angle δI I and δI I I , as shown
in Fig. 10.
As all the CHBs need to achieve its own dc voltage control,
they all need to apply a complete dc voltage control including
the overall dc voltage control in Fig. 6, among-phase power
control in Fig. 7 and in-phase power control in Fig. 8. The three
CHBs require 9N PI controllers to achieve dc voltage control.
As the MAB does not need to achieve dc voltage control,
it only needs to manage the transferring power among the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
OUYANG et al.: DC VOLTAGE CONTROL STRATEGY OF THREE-TERMINAL MEDIUM-VOLTAGE PET-BASED SNOPS 3687

Fig. 11. Control block diagram of MAB under CHB+CHB+CHB

strategy.

three terminals. As a feeder power balancer, the power com-

mand PI schedule , PI I schedule , and PI I I schedule must be as- Fig. 12. CHB+MAB strategy.
signed by the grid schedule using communication. According to
these power commands, the phase shift angle between the three
H-bridge converters among an MAB can be calculated in a nu-
merical way [25] from inversed (1). A power feedback loop can
be used to adjust the phase shift angle which decreases the power
error. Therefore, the MAB control block diagram is shown in
Fig. 11. Fig. 13. Control of MAB stage under CHB+MAB strategy.
Letting all the MAB share the same phase shift angle is based
on the assumption that all the MAB have precisely equal param-
eters. Unfortunately, in real HFT and uH-level inductor machin- the phase shift angles. The basic form of this control is formed
ing, it is difficult to make all MAB parameters precisely equal by two PI-based controllers [27], [28]. A power calculation-
[26]. Consequently, the transferred power of MAB as well as based feedforward [25] as well as a local-linearization-based
the PET cells will not be well balanced, causing negative effects decouple loop [29], [30] can be added to improve the dynamic
such as total harmonic distortion increase, unbalance compo- performance. In this paper, the basic form is used as shown in
nents to the grid, etc. Fig. 13.
To balance the MAB transferred power with different param- Owing to that, all the dc voltage control variables are zero,
eters, the powers of all MABs need to be sampled at the dc in both CHB II and CHB III, all the converters in a same phase
capacitors and then the phase shift angles need to be adjusted by can share a same voltage command as (2). As all the H-bridge
to balance the transferred powers of all MABs [16]. This control converters in same phase also shares a same current as (3), thus
strategy requires high-bandwidth MAB power sample system to the transferring power of H-bridge converters in a same phase
achieve precise measurement on MAB high-frequency currents, are also the same as (4)
moreover, additional 2N-2 PI controllers are needed to achieve
power balancing control which increases the system coding cost. u∗CHB t p1 = u∗CHB t p2 = · · · · · · = u∗CHB t pN (2)
iCHB t p · u∗CHB t p1 = iCHB t p · u∗CHB t p2 = ······
B. CHB+MAB Strategy
= iCHB t p · u∗CHB t pN (3)
This strategy is developed from CHB+DAB strategy for
UNIFLEX-PM and two-terminal modularized PET in [12], PCHB t p1 = PCHB t p2 = · · · · · · = PCHB t pN (4)
[17]–[20]. In the CHB+MAB strategy, DC I is controlled by
CHB I; DC II and DC III are controlled by the MAB stage; where p = A, B or C; t = II or III.
CHB II and CHB III does not take part in dc voltage control Therefore, the transferring powers of all PET cells are bal-
but only control the ac current, as shown in Fig. 12. anced and so the active power difference among cells is only the
As the CHB II and CHB III does not need to control the power loss difference. Comparably, in the CHB+CHB+CHB
dc voltage, the v0∗ II , v0∗ III , kA n I I , kB n I I , kC n I I , kA n I I I , strategy, the active power difference among cells is both the
kB n I I I and kC n I I I (n = 1, 2, . . . N) are all zero. Meanwhile, power loss difference and the transferring power difference
CHB I should apply a complete dc voltage control including the caused by the MAB parameters’ difference. Consequently, it
overall dc voltage control in Fig. 6, among-phase power control can be easily concluded that the CHB+MAB method has an
in Fig. 7 and in-phase power control in Fig. 8. obvious advantage in PET cell power balancing.
The MAB has to control the DC II and DC III. That means, The number of PI controllers of CHB+MAB strategy is also
for each MAB converter, one of its dc voltage is controlled by the fewer than the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy. As one of the CHB
CHB stage, meanwhile the other two dc voltages needs to be con- need 3N PI controllers and the MAB needs 2N PI controllers,
trolled by the MAB converter. This can be achieved by adjusting only 5N PI controllers are needed.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3688 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 5, MAY 2020

Fig. 14. Possible three-terminal PET operation scenario that excludes

a terminal.

However, the CHB+MAB strategy would suffer from the

asymmetrical control structure. It can be seen that the CHB
stages have different responsibilities in dc balancing control:
CHB I is “special” as it is fully responsible for dc balancing
control, while other CHBs are not responsible for dc balancing
control. In a symmetrical multiterminal application, any termi-
nal could be excluded from operation owing to the grid power
schedule or a grid fault as shown in Fig. 14. If the excluded termi-
nal happened to be the “special” terminal, the system would lose
the dc voltage control. Therefore, a symmetric control strategy
with no “special” CHB will be more suitable for multiterminal
application.

C. CHB×3+MAB Strategy
In this paper, a modified dc balancing control strategy that
combines the advantage of the aforementioned two strategies is
proposed. Similar to the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy, the pro-
posed balancing control strategy is symmetric in structure, all
the CHBs share the responsibility of dc balancing control so
there is no “special” CHB. Similar to the CHB+MAB strategy,
the MAB phase shift angle is not obtained by power schedule,
but still by dc voltage loop, thus there is no unequal transferred
power issue caused by the unequal MAB parameters, so the
MAB power sampling system as well as the MAB power bal-
ancing loop is not needed.
The key concepts of the proposed dc voltage strategy are as
follows.
1) Each MAB balances the three individual dc voltages
within its PET cell.
2) The CHBs do not operate on the individual dc voltages;
instead, they balance the PET cell average dc voltages.
3) The responsibility of PET cell average dc voltage control
is shared by all the CHBs.
As all the four stages take part in the dc voltage control, it is
called CHB×3+MAB strategy.
The phase A PET is taken as an example to illustrate the
control strategy. The physical circuit of the phase A PET
is shown in Fig. 15(a): CHB I A is connecting Vdc I A 1∼N ,
CHB I I A is connecting Vdc I I A 1∼N , and CHB I I I A is
connecting Vdc I I I A 1∼N ; the three dc capacitor groups are
connected by the MAB stage. From the viewpoint of the
CHB stages, every three dc voltages within a PET cell are
unified as one dc voltage. Therefore, the equivalent circuit is
modified as shown in Fig. 15(b): Vdc I A 1∼N , Vdc I I A 1∼N ,
Fig. 15. (a) Physical circuit for a single-phase three-terminal MV PET
and (b) its equivalent circuit from the view of CHB×3+MAB strategy.
and Vdc I I I A 1∼N as well as the MAB stage no longer exist;
instead, they are replaced by a PET cell average dc voltage
group Vdc Cell A 1∼N . The control of Vdc C ell I 1∼N is shared
by all the CHBs by a set of user-determined ratio kI , kI I , and
kI I I , thus there is no “special” CHB in this control strategy.
The proposed dc voltage control includes four layers. One is
for the MAB stage: the in-cell dc voltage balancing control; the
other three are for the CHB stage: the overall dc voltage control,
the among-phase dc voltage balancing control, and the in-phase
dc voltage balancing control.
The overall structure of dc voltage processing is shown in
Fig. 16. The 9N dc voltages Vdc t pn are sampled, they are first
transferred to the MAB stage to achieve in-cell dc voltage bal-
ancing, then the 3N cell average voltages Vdc Cell pn are obtained
and transferred to the CHB stages to achieve in-phase balancing,
among-phase balancing, and the overall voltage control.
In order to avoid the i∗d of CHBs as well as the phase shift
angles of MABs from being influenced by the 100 Hz compo-
nent on the dc capacitors, a low-pass filter was added to the dc
voltage sample process before obtaining Vdc t pn as [15].
1) In-Cell DC Voltage Balancing Control (MAB): Com-
pared to the MAB control in the CHB+MAB strategy, the
∗
difference in CHB×3+MAB strategy is to replace the Vdc

Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
OUYANG et al.: DC VOLTAGE CONTROL STRATEGY OF THREE-TERMINAL MEDIUM-VOLTAGE PET-BASED SNOPS
Fig. 16. DC voltage signal processing.
Fig. 17. Control of MAB stage under CHB×3+MAB Strategy.
Fig. 18. Overall dc voltage control of CHB×3+MAB strategy.
Fig. 19. Among-phase dc voltage balancing control of CHB×3+MAB
strategy.
by Vdc I as shown in Fig. 17. This loop will only achieve
Vdc I = Vdc I I = Vdc I I I but not maintaining them to any spe-
cific value.
As the in-cell dc voltage balancing is done by the MAB,
the CHB stages do not operate on the individual dc voltages.
The CHBs only need to control the cell average dc voltages
Vdc Cell pn .
2) Overall DC Voltage Control (CHB): This control loop
maintains the overall dc voltages of the whole PET as shown in
Fig. 18.
3) Among-Phase DC Voltage Balancing Control (CHB):
The among-phase dc voltage balancing loop is shown in Fig. 19:
The among-phase power compensation commands of the whole
PET system, PA and PB , are obtained by comparing phase
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3689
Fig. 20. In-phase dc voltage balancing control of CHB×3+MAB
strategy.
Fig. 21. Flowchart of CHB stages’ control of CHB×3+MAB Strategy.
dc voltages to the average dc voltage. The zero sequence voltage
is calculated according to the current of all three terminals.
4) In-Phase DC Voltage Balancing Control (CHB): The
in-phase dc voltage balancing loop is shown in Fig. 20. By
comparing the PET cell average dc voltages to its phase average
dc voltage, trimming coefficients kCELL pn (p = A, B, C, n =
1, . . . , N ) are generated to adjust the input/output active power
of the PET cells within phase p.
In the proposed strategy, there would be no “special” CHB,
thus the overall dc voltage control, the among-phase dc voltage
balancing control as well as the in-phase dc voltage balancing
control are shared by all the CHBs. That means the i∗d , v0∗ ,
and k Cell pn are distributed to all the three CHB stages simul-
taneously through distribution parameters kI , kI I , and kI I I .
The distribution parameters of 1) overall loop, 2) among-phase
loop, 3) and the in-phase loop can be set differently. The overall
control flowchart is shown in Fig. 21.
The number of PI controllers is also 5N, where 2N belongs
to MAB stage, meanwhile 3N belongs to the dc voltage control.
Compared to the CHB+MAB strategy, the added procedure is
the cell average dc derivation and the distribution parameters.
The existence of kI , kI I , and kI I I can make the
CHB×3+MAB strategy very flexible as they can be set
according to the operating states of the PET-SNOP. Also,
the CHB×3+MAB strategy is also more robust than the
CHB+MAB strategy. When facing a terminal loss in Fig. 14,
it can automatically transfer the dc voltage control of the lost
3690
TABLE I
PET PARAMETERS
Fig. 22. Simulation results of CHB+CHB+CHB strategy.
terminal to the other terminals to ensure the PET operation,
which cannot be achieved by CHB+MAB strategy as the dc
capacitors of the lost terminal will be continuously charging or
discharging and finally causing the system collapse.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
A PET simulation model is built in MATLAB/Simulink to
verify the proposed topology as well as the three proposed con-
trol strategies. The circuit is as Figs. 2 and 3 and the parameters
are shown in Table I.
The first simulation is built to verify the power sharing ad-
vantage of CHB×3+MAB over the CHB+CHB+CHB strat-
egy. Within each phase, the MAB inductors of the two cells
are set 10% different from each other. The simulation results of
CHB+CHB+CHB strategy are shown in Fig. 22 and those of
CHB×3+MAB strategy are shown in Fig. 23.
In the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy, owing to different MAB
inductors among cells, the power of PET cells are also different
thus the H-bridge converters within each CHB phase would
generate different ac voltages as shown in Fig. 22.
In the CHB×3+MAB strategy, the MAB phase shift com-
mand is given by voltage closed-loop, thus the power of PET
cells are still balanced (regardless of the power loss differ-
ence) despite having different MAB inductors. The H-bridge
converters within each CHB phase would generate a same ac
voltage as shown in Fig. 23. The power sharing advantage of
CHB×3+MAB strategy over the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy
is verified.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 5, MAY 2020
Fig. 23. Simulation results of CHB×3+MAB strategy.
Fig. 24. Simulation results of CHB+MAB strategy.
Fig. 25. Simulation results of CHB×3+MAB strategy.
The second simulation is built to verify the robust advan-
tage of CHB×3+MAB over the CHB+MAB strategy. In the
CHB+MAB topology, the CHB I is selected as the “special”
CHB to control the dc voltage. In the CHB×3+MAB strategy,
the dc voltage control is set to be shared by all the three CHBs
with kI : kI I : kI I I = 1/3 : 1/3 : 1/3.
Before 1.0 s, the system is normally running; at 1.0 s, the
terminal I is cut off from the grid. The simulation results are
shown in Figs. 24 and 25.
In the CHB+MAB strategy, the original power(current) com-
mand is PI∗ = 330 kW + PLoss , PI∗I = −110 kW and PI∗I I =
−220 kW, while in the new state, the power(current) command
becomes PI∗ = ∞(saturated), PI∗I = −110 kW and PI∗I I =
−220 kW. As the CHB I actual input current becomes zero, the
dc group I continues to loss power and eventually becomes zero.
As dc group I drops, the dc group II and dc group III are also
unable to maintain at 2000 V, instead, it drops to around 1500 V
OUYANG et al.: DC VOLTAGE CONTROL STRATEGY OF THREE-TERMINAL MEDIUM-VOLTAGE PET-BASED SNOPS
Fig. 26. Experiment platform of 36 H-bridge three-terminal PET.
TABLE II
PET PARAMETERS
and turns into the diode-rectifier state as shown in Fig. 24. Ob-
viously the system collapsed after the terminal I is cut off.
In the CHB×3+MAB strategy, as the dc voltage control is
shared by all the CHB stages, the dc voltages can still be con-
trolled by the other CHB stages. The original power(current)
command is PI∗ = 330 kW + 1/3PLoss , PI∗I = −110 kW +
1/3PLoss , and PI∗I I = −220 kW + 1/3PLoss , while in the new
state, the power(current) command becomes PI∗ = 495 kW +
1/2PLoss , PI∗I = 55 kW + 1/2PLoss , and PI∗I I = −55 kW +
1/2PLoss , the system can still be balanced thus all the dc volt-
ages can still maintain at 2000 V as shown in Fig. 25. Obviously
the system can maintain running without collapsed. The ro-
bust advantage of CHB×3+MAB strategy over the CHB+MAB
strategy is verified.
V. LOW VOLTAGE EXPERIMENT PLATFORM
A downscaled experiment platform of the three-terminal PET
described in Figs. 2 and 3 was built, as shown in Fig. 26. The
high-frequency magnetic components were constructed of fer-
rite and Litz wire. The three coils of HFT were equal in position.
The external inductors were 65 μH each. The PET parameters
and magnetic component design are shown in Tables II and III
individually.
The system efficiency under BTB operation is ࣈ75%, the
CHB stage loss is ࣈ7.5%, meanwhile the MAB stage loss is
ࣈ10%, which is a reasonable efficiency at this low-voltage level.
VI. EXPERIMENT RESULTS
Two sets of experiment are done to verify the proposed
CHB×3+MAB strategy itself. 6.1: module power disturbance:
an additional power loss is added to one of the modules to check
the effectiveness of the CHB×3+MAB strategy; 6.2: unsched-
uled terminal loss: terminal II is cut from the system to check
the robustness of the proposed control strategy.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3691
TABLE III
HIGH-FREQUENCY MAGNETIC COMPONENT DESIGN
Fig. 27. (a) iA of three terminals before disturbance. (b) iA of three
terminals in the new steady state. (c) id of three terminals.
The experiment comparison between the proposed
CHB×3+MAB strategy and the other two are shown in 6.3.
A. Module Power Disturbance
At normal state, the input current of three terminals are set as
4, 8, and –12 A which means absorbing 1.32 kW from termi-
nal I, 2.64 kW from terminal II and delivering 3.96 kW to
terminal III. The dc voltage control is distributed to
all three CHBs by kI  1 :kII 
1 :kIII 1 = 1/3:1/3:1/3,
kI  2 : kII 
2 III 
:k 2 = 6/11:3/11:2/11, k I 3 II 
:k 3 :kIII 
3 =
1/3:1/3:1/3. The output of overall dc voltage loop is  i∗d =
3.3 A to compensate for the SST power loss. The  i∗d is evenly
distributed to three CHBs thus the commands are adjusted to 5.1,
9.1, and –10.9 A. The phase A currents are shown in Fig. 27(a).
A 75 Ω resistor was added to the dc capacitor I B1, which
brings a 133 W power consumption rise on that capacitor. This
action causes power interrupt to inner Cell B1, also causes
power unequal among three phases, and power unequal within
the cells of phase B. The A-phase currents in new steady state
and the d-axis currents during the transient process are shown in
Fig. 27. To compensate for the increased power consumption,
the power-in terminal has to increase the input power, mean-
while the power-out terminal has to decrease the output power.
Theoretically, a 133 W power consumption rise will cause a
0.54 A of  i∗d rise considering the system efficiency. The ac-
tual  id is 0.57 A according to Fig. 27(a) and (b).
Fig. 28(a) shows the in-cell dc voltage balancing process,
which is balanced after a dynamic process. Fig. 28(b) and (c)
shows the MAB ac voltages and its magnetizing voltage. Be-
fore the module power disturbance, the phase shift angle is
δI –I I I = 7.96 μs and δI I –I I I = 9.7 μs; in the new steady state,
3692
Fig. 28. (a) In-cell dc voltage balancing. (b) MAB ac voltages before
disturbance. (c) MAB ac voltages under new steady state.
Fig. 29. (a) Among-phase dc voltage balancing. (b) Zero sequence
voltage of all terminals.
Fig. 30. (a) In-phase dc voltage balancing. (b) Power trimming coeffi-
cients of phase B.
the phase shift angle is δI –I I I = 6.8 μs and δI I –I I I = 9.36 μs
which indicates higher power delivered to terminal I.
Fig. 29 shows the among-phase dc voltage balancing.
Fig. 29(a) shows the three phase dc voltage of terminal I, which
achieves balancing after a dynamic process. Fig. 29(b) shows
the injected zero sequence voltage. As the power interrupt on
B1 brought additional power unbalance among three phases, the
required zero-sequence voltage becomes larger.
Fig. 30 shows the in-phase dc voltage balancing. Fig. 30(a)
shows the Vdc I B 1 and Vdc I B 2 , Fig. 30(b) shows the in-
phase power trimming coefficient. As the power interrupt on
B1 brought power unbalance within the phase B, a relatively
big power trimming coefficient is needed.
Figs. 27–30 verify the effectiveness of the proposed dc voltage
control strategy to handle the cell power interrupt.
B. Unscheduled Terminal Loss
The terminal II is cut from the source to test the robustness
of the proposed control strategy. With a power-in terminal loss,
the input power of terminal I is increased, meanwhile the output
power of terminal III is decreased and finally achieves a new
steady state, which is shown in Fig. 31(a) and (b). This is au-
tomatically achieved by the overall dc balancing control loop
in Figs. 18 and 21 without using any fault detection or control
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 5, MAY 2020
Fig. 31. (a) iA of three terminals. (b) i∗d of three terminals.
Fig. 32. (a) In-cell dc voltage balancing. (b) MAB ac voltages in new
steady state. (c) MAB ac currents in new steady state.
Fig. 33. (a) Among-phase dc voltage balancing. (b) Zero sequence
voltage of all terminals.
strategy reconfiguration, which is the same with the simula-
tion results and verifies the robustness of the proposed control
strategy.
Fig. 32(a) shows the in-cell dc voltage balancing process. The
dc voltage corresponding to the terminal II has a voltage drop
due to the input power loss, but achieves balancing again after a
dynamic process. The MAB voltage and current of new steady
state is shown in Fig. 32(b) and (c). It is seen that the HFAC
voltage of terminal II becomes in phase with the magnetizing
voltage meanwhile the HF current changes to zero.
Fig. 33 shows the among-phase dc voltage balancing.
Fig. 33(a) shows the three phase dc voltage of terminal I.
Fig. 33(b) shows the injected zero sequence voltage. In the
new steady state, the zero sequence voltage amplitude is in-
creased compared the to normal case, which is because the zero
sequence voltage in terminal II losses its effect in the among-
phase voltage balancing, thus the original zero sequence power
in terminal II has to be taken by the other two terminals so their
zero-sequence voltage has to increase.
Fig. 34 shows the in-phase dc voltage balancing. Fig. 34(a)
shows the Vdc I B 1 and Vdc I B 2 , Fig. 34(b) shows the in-phase
power trimming coefficient. It is seen that after a dynamic
process, the in-phase dc voltage balancing is achieved. The
trimming coefficient is also small as before.
OUYANG et al.: DC VOLTAGE CONTROL STRATEGY OF THREE-TERMINAL MEDIUM-VOLTAGE PET-BASED SNOPS
Fig. 34. (a) In-phase dc voltage balancing. (b) Power trimming coeffi-
cients of phase B.
Fig. 35. (a) Modulation wave and trimming coefficient of CHB I A of
CHB+CHB+CHB strategy. (b) Modulation wave of CHB I A and trim-
ming coefficient of phase A of CHB×3+MAB strategy.
Figs. 31–34 verify the robustness of the proposed
CHB×3+MAB strategy. The system can operate under an un-
scheduled terminal lose without modifying the control strategy.
C. Comparison With the Other Two Strategies
In order to verify the power sharing advantage of
CHB×3+MAB over the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy, the in-
ductors of one MAB in phase A are adjusted by adding addi-
tional small inductors, thus the PET cells of phase A would
transfer different amount of active power under the same phase
shift angle when apply the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy. As a
comparison, the phase shift angles of CHB×3+MAB strategy
is derived by voltage closed-loop, thus the MAB inductor mis-
match would not cause power mismatch between PET cells of
phase A. The steady-state results are shown in Fig. 35, it shows
that the modules are transferring different amount of power us-
ing the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy as the modulation waves are
different in amplitude, meanwhile transferring a same amount of
power using CHB×3+MAB strategy as the modulation waves
are overlapped. The power sharing advantage of CHB×3+MAB
strategy over the CHB+CHB+CHB strategy is verified.
In order to verify the robust advantage of CHB×3+MAB over
the CHB+MAB strategy, the system is running in CHB+MAB
strategy with CHB II assigned as the special CHB which con-
trols the dc voltage. When CHB II is cut from the system cre-
ating the same scenario in Section VI-B, the response is shown
in Fig. 36. As the terminals I and III do not have the dc voltage
control, they still attempt to maintain the scheduled current (ref-
erence current do not change), thus the whole system is running
with negative active power. Terminal II dc voltage drops zero;
terminal I and III dc voltage drops to a clamping voltage and the
output currents are distorted. From the view of the whole sys-
tem, it is definitely running out of control. Comparing Fig. 36
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3693
Fig. 36. (a) In-cell dc voltage. (b) Phase A current. (c) d-axis reference
current. (d) d-axis current under terminal II loss of CHB+MAB strategy.
and the results in Section VI-B, the robustness advantage of
CHB×3+MAB strategy is verified.
The comparison results from experiment are the same as those
in the simulation section.
VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a PET-based three-terminal SNOP topology was
proposed. It consisted of CHB converters and MAB converters
to interface three MV feeders meanwhile achieve isolation.
The dc voltage control strategy for the proposed PET-SNOP
was studied. Two strategies were derived from the existing
strategies: CHB+CHB+CHB strategy, which suffers from un-
balanced cell power; and CHB+MAB strategy, which suffers
from the asymmetric structure. In order to overcome these draw-
backs, a novel strategy: CHB×3+MAB strategy, was proposed
in this paper. The CHB×3+MAB strategy can achieve cell
power balancing as well as having a symmetric control struc-
ture, which avoids the drawbacks, meanwhile combines the ad-
vantages of the two strategies. Moreover, the CHB×3+MAB
strategy can increase the flexibility and robustness of the dc
voltage control.
The effectiveness of the proposed PET-SNOP topology as
well as the proposed CHB×3+MAB dc voltage control strategy
was verified by both simulation and experiment results.
The proposed circuit topology as well as the dc voltage control
strategy can be extended to applications with more terminals.
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Bloemink and T. C. Green, “Increasing distributed generation pene-
tration using soft normally-open points,” in Proc. IEEE PES Gen. Meeting,
2010, pp. 1–8.
[2] P. Li et al., “Coordinated control method of voltage and reactive power
for active distribution networks based on soft open point,” IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1430–1442, Oct. 2017.
[3] J. M. Bloemink and T. C. Green, “Effects of power electronic compen-
sation on distribution network thermal and voltage violations,” in Proc.
IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, 2013, pp. 1–5.
3694 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 67, NO. 5, MAY 2020
[4] J. M. Bloemink and T. C. Green, “Increasing photovoltaic penetration with
local energy storage and soft normally-open points,” in Proc. IEEE Power
Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–8.
[5] P. Li et al., “Optimal operation of soft open points in active distribution
networks under three-phase unbalanced conditions,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 380–391, Jan. 2019.
[6] A. Aithal et al., “Impact of soft open point on feeder automation,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Energy Conf., 2016, pp. 1–6.
[7] J. Feng et al., “Power electronic transformer-based railway traction sys-
tems: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power
Electron., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1237–1253, Sep. 2017.
[8] X. She, A. Q. Huang, and R. Burgos, “Review of solid-state trans-
former technologies and their application in power distribution systems,”
IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 186–198,
Sep. 2013.
[9] S. Falcones, R. Ayyanar, and X. Mao, “A DC–DC multiport-converter-
based solid-state transformer integrating distributed generation and stor-
age,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2192–2203,
May 2013.
[10] C. Zhao et al., “Power electronic traction transformer—Medium voltage
prototype,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3257–3268,
Jul. 2014.
[11] X. She, X. Yu, F. Wang, and A. Q. Huang, “Design and Demonstration
of a 3.6-kV–120-V/10-kVA solid-state transformer for smart grid appli-
cation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 3982–3996,
Aug. 2014.
[12] S. Bifaretti et al., “Advanced power electronic conversion and control
system for universal and flexible power management,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 231–243, Jun. 2011.
[13] S. Pipolo et al., “Reactive power control strategies for UNIFLEX-PM
Converter,” in Proc. 42nd Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2016,
pp. 3570–3575.
[14] D. Wang et al., “A 10-kV/400-V 500-kVA electronic power trans-
former,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 6653–6663,
Nov. 2016.
[15] H. Akagi and R. Kitada, “Control and design of a modular multilevel cas-
cade BTB system using bidirectional isolated DC/DC converters,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 2457–2464, Sep. 2011.
[16] B. Zhao, Q. Song, J. Li, and W. Liu, “A modular multilevel DC-link
front-to-front DC solid-state transformer based on high-frequency dual
active phase shift for HVDC grid integration,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 8919–8927, Nov. 2017.
[17] L. Tarisciotti et al., “Multiobjective modulated model predictive control
for a multilevel solid-state transformer,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51,
no. 5, pp. 4051–4060, Sep./Oct. 2015.
[18] S. Bifaretti et al., “Power flow control through a multi-level H-bridge
based power converter for universal and flexible power management in
future electrical grids,” in Proc. 13th Int. Power Electron. Motion Control
Conf., 2008, pp. 1771–1778.
[19] S. Ouyang et al., “A single phase power electronic transformer considering
harmonic compensation in Scott traction system,” in Proc. 9th Int. Conf.
Power Electron. ECCE Asia, 2015, pp. 2620–2627.
[20] X. Wang et al., “Control and experiment of an H-bridge-based three-
phase three-stage modular power electronic transformer,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 2002–2011, Mar. 2015.
[21] L. Maharjan et al., “State-of-charge (SOC)-balancing control of a battery
energy storage system based on a cascade PWM converter,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1628–1636, Jun. 2009.
[22] L. Wang, D. Zhang, Y. Wang, B. Wu, and H. S. Athab, “Power and
voltage balance control of a novel three-phase solid-state transformer
using multilevel cascaded H-bridge inverters for microgrid applications,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 3289–3301, Apr. 2016.
[23] J. Tian et al., “Analysis and control of electronic power transformer with
star-configuration under unbalanced conditions,” IET Elect. Power Appl.,
vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 358–369, 2015.
[24] A. Sankala et al., “Modular double-cascade converter for high-power
medium-voltage drives,” IET Power Electron., vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1661–
1669, 2015.
[25] C. Gu, Z. Zheng, L. Xu, K. Wang, and Y. Li, “Modeling and control
of a multiport power electronic transformer (PET) for electric traction
applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 915–927,
Feb. 2016.
[26] T. Zhao et al., “Voltage and power balance control for a cascaded multi-
level solid state transformer,” in Proc. Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo.,
2010, pp. 761–767.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[27] C. Gu, Z. Zheng, and Y. Li, “A power electronic transformer (PET)
with multiport bidirectional resonant DC-DC converters for electric trac-
tion applications,” in Proc. IEEE Transp. Electrific. Conf. Expo, 2015,
pp. 1–6.
[28] Z. Zheng, Z. Gao, C. Gu, L. Xu, K. Wang, and Y. Li, “Stability and voltage
balance control of a modular converter with multiwinding high-frequency
transformer,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 4183–4194,
Aug. 2014.
[29] Y. Yu et al., “Power flow control of a triple active bridge DC-DC con-
verter using GaN power devices for a low-voltage DC power distribution
system[C]//,” in Proc. Future Energy Electron. Conf. ECCE Asia, 2017,
pp. 772–777.
[30] S. Nakagawa, J. Arai, R. Kasashima, K. Nishimoto, Y. Kado, and K. Wada,
“Dynamic performance of triple-active bridge converter rated at 400 V,
10 kW, and 20 kHz,” in Proc. IEEE 3rd Int. Future Energy Electron. Conf.
ECCE Asia, 2017, pp. 1090–1094.
Shaodi Ouyang (S’14–M’19) was born in Hubei,
China. He received the B.S. degree from the
Huazhong University of Science and Technol-
ogy, Wuhan, China, in 2011, and the Ph.D. de-
gree from Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China,
in 2018, both in electrical engineering.
In 2019, he joined Xi’an Jiaotong Uni-
versity, as an Assistant Research Associate.
His research interests include power electronic
transformer, multilevel converters, and dc–dc
converters.
Jinjun Liu (M’97–SM’10–F’19) received the
B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineer-
ing from Xi’an Jiaotong University (XJTU), Xi’an,
China, in 1992 and 1997, respectively.
He then joined the XJTU Electrical Engineer-
ing School as a faculty. From late 1999 to early
2002, he was with the Center for Power Elec-
tronics Systems, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, as
a Visiting Scholar. In late 2002, he was pro-
moted to a Full Professor and then the Head
of the Power Electronics and Renewable Energy Center, XJTU, which
now comprises 17 Faculty Members and more than 100 graduate stu-
dents and carries one of the leading power electronics programs in
China. From 2005 to early 2010, he served as an Associate Dean of
Electrical Engineering School, XJTU, and from 2009 to early 2015,
the Dean for Undergraduate Education with XJTU. He is currently
an XJTU Distinguished Professor of Power Electronics, sponsored
by Chang Jiang Scholars Program of Chinese Ministry of Education.
He has coauthored three books (including one textbook), published
more than 400 technical papers in peer-reviewed journals and con-
ference proceedings, holds nearly 50 invention patents (China/U.S.),
and delivered for many times plenary keynote speeches and tuto-
rials at IEEE conferences or China national conferences in power
electronics area. His research interests include power quality control
and utility applications of power electronics, microgrids for sustain-
able energy and distributed generation, and more/all electronic power
systems.
Dr. Liu was the recipient of governmental awards for eight times at na-
tional level or provincial/ministerial level for scientific research/teaching
achievements, Delta Scholar Award in 2006, Chang Jiang Scholar Award
and Outstanding Sci-Tech Worker of the Nation Award in 2014, and
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics Prize Paper Award in 2016.
He served as the IEEE Power Electronics Society Region ten Liaison
and then China Liaison for ten years, an Associate Editor for the IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS for 12 years, and from starting
2015, the Vice President for membership of IEEE PELS. He is on the
Board of China Electrotechnical Society (CES) and was elected the Vice
President of the CES Power Electronics Society in 2013. Since 2013,
he has been the Vice President for International Affairs, China Power
Supply Society (CPSS) and since 2016, the inaugural Editor-in-Chief of
CPSS Transactions on Power Electronics and Applications. Since 2013,
he has been serving as the Vice Chair of the Chinese National Steering
Committee for College Electric Power Engineering Programs.
OUYANG et al.: DC VOLTAGE CONTROL STRATEGY OF THREE-TERMINAL MEDIUM-VOLTAGE PET-BASED SNOPS
Yue Yang was born in Shandong, China, in
1994. He received the B.S. degree in electri-
cal engineering in 2017 from Xi’an Jiaotong
University, Xi’an, China, where he is currently
working toward the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering.
His research interests include power
electronic transformer and reliability of power
electronic systems.
Xingxing Chen (S’17) was born in Zhe-
jiang, China. He received the B.S. degree in
electronic and information engineering from
Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China,
in 2015. He is currently working toward the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering with Xi’an Jiao-
tong University, Xi’an, China.
His research interests include high voltage di-
rect current and modular multilevel converters.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Cardiff University. Downloaded on April 26,2023 at 10:07:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3695
Shuguang Song (S’17) was born in Shandong,
China. He received the B.S. degree in elec-
trical engineering in 2014 from Xi’an Jiaotong
University, Xi’an, China, where he is currently
working toward the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering.
His research interests include modular multi-
level converters, power quality, high voltage di-
rect current, and motor drive.
Hongda Wu was born in Fujian, China, in 1994.
He received the B.S. degree in electrical engi-
neering in 2016 from Xi’an Jiaotong University,
Xi’an, China, where he is currently working to-
ward the M.S. degree in electrical engineering.
His research interests include modular multi-
level converter and space vector modulation.