4.6 Article

Analysis and experimental verification of improved two-level converter behaviors under unbalanced AC conditions

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107266

关键词

AC faults; Unbalance operation; HVDC

资金

  1. Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia [1034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An improved two-level converter, I2LC, is presented as a practical design trade-off between conventional two-level converter (C2LC) and modular multilevel converter (MMC), focusing on AC and DC fault responses similar to MMC and simplicity of C2LC. The theoretical analysis and validation through scaled-down simulations and experiments show that I2LC can achieve concurrent operational objectives during unbalanced AC grid conditions. Further investigation on the performance during asymmetrical AC faults supports the theoretical analysis and experimental studies.
An improved two-level converter (I2LC) represents a practical design trade-off between the conventional twolevel converter (C2LC) and modular multilevel converter (MMC), in which the MMC like AC and DC fault responses and relative simplicity of C2LC power circuit and control are prioritized. Therefore, this paper presents theoretical analysis, which helps to develop broader understandings of the I2LC, and identification of the needed countermeasures to ensure correct operation during balanced and unbalanced grid conditions. The correctness of the findings and observations drawn from the presented analysis has been validated with the aid of scaled-down simulations and experimentations of the I2LC. Unlike the C2LC, it has been revealed that the I2LC can offer two concurrent operational objectives at system level during unbalanced AC grid conditions, such as balanced output currents and ripple-free DC link current. Further investigation conducted on the performance of the I2LC based two-terminal DC link during asymmetrical AC faults corroborates the theoretical analysis and scaled-down simulation and experimental studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据