The first analysis of all-silicon converter structures was carried out by L. Gyur-gyi
and B. R. Pelly in 1976[8]. The Unrestricted Frequency Changer (UFC), which was the
name that they gave to the converter. UFC was possible to cite bilateral power flow,
unlimited output frequency range, good input voltage utilisation and no input current and output voltage subharmonic components. The converter required only nine bilateral switches and had relatively low switching frequencies. The main disadvantage of the UFC structures treated in was that they generated large unwanted input current and output voltage harmonics. The order of these harmonics was generally low which made them difficult to filter out. So UFC is fail to impress as a all-siliconn converter. A major advance in the modulation theory of matrix converters was made by A. Alesina and M. Venturini in 1981[1]. The name matrix converter was given by these two. They partially solved the main disadvantage of the UFC with the introduction of PWM voltage control scheme which can eliminate athe unwanted harmonics by a greather amount. Unfortunately, the proposed scheme had a serious drawback. The maximum output to input voltage ratio that could be achieved was only 0.5. The same two authors later proposed an improved method which increased the output/input ratio to 0.866 by adding zero sequence components to the desired output voltages . Space vector modulation techniques were first employed by Huber in 1989 to control a 3 phase-3 phase matrix converter. Although it was possible to obtain the maximum output input voltage ratio using this technique, it was not possible to control input current displacement factor. After a while the same authers put forward a new paper that uses space vector PWM approach in both input as well as output. By using SVPWM in input and output we obtained a more sinusoidal input current and control of input displacement factor[6].
A drastically different waveform synthesis approach was proposed by P. Zio-
gas[9]. They split the matrix converter into a fictitious rectifier and a fictitious inverter and instead of using the matrix converter to assemble its output voltage directly from consecutive chops of the input voltage, the input voltage was first rectified to create a fictitious dc bus and then inverted at the required output frequency. This technique was referred as the indirect function approach and it allowed the use of well-known techniques for controlling the fictitious rectifier and inverter. A paper by Huber resented a modulation technique which employed space vectors in both the rectifier and inverter.
The use of space vector modulation at the input end allows sinusoidal input current
and control of the input displacement factor. After that many different approaches have been proposed in matrix converter topology includig predictive current loop techniques,fuzzy logic control, hysteresis current control,sliding control modulation etc.[5].
[1] M. Venturini and A. Alesina, “The generalized transformer: A new bidirec-
tional sinusoidal waveform frequency converter with continuously adjustable in-
put power factor,”in Proc. IEEE PESC‘80, 1980, pp. 242 to 252.
[2] Jiacheng Wang,Bin Wu,Dewei (David) Xu,and Navid R. Zargari, “Indirect Space
Vector Based Modulation Techniques for High-Power Multi-Modular Matrix Con-
verters”,.
[3] Patrick W. Wheeler,Jose Rodriguez,Jon C. Clare,Lee Empringham and Alejandro
Weinstein,Matrix Converters: A Technology Review IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS”, VOL. 49, NO. 2, APRIL 2002.
[4] Amit Kumar Gupta,and Ashwin M. Khambadkone,‘Space Vector PWM Scheme
for Multilevel Inverters Based on Two-Level Space Vector PWM”,IEEE TRANS-
ACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 53, NO. 5, OCTOBER
2006.
[5] Roberto A. Petrocelli,“New modulation method for matrix converters”,A thesis
submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
and B. R. Pelly in 1976[8]. The Unrestricted Frequency Changer (UFC), which was the
name that they gave to the converter. UFC was possible to cite bilateral power flow,
unlimited output frequency range, good input voltage utilisation and no input current and output voltage subharmonic components. The converter required only nine bilateral switches and had relatively low switching frequencies. The main disadvantage of the UFC structures treated in was that they generated large unwanted input current and output voltage harmonics. The order of these harmonics was generally low which made them difficult to filter out. So UFC is fail to impress as a all-siliconn converter. A major advance in the modulation theory of matrix converters was made by A. Alesina and M. Venturini in 1981[1]. The name matrix converter was given by these two. They partially solved the main disadvantage of the UFC with the introduction of PWM voltage control scheme which can eliminate athe unwanted harmonics by a greather amount. Unfortunately, the proposed scheme had a serious drawback. The maximum output to input voltage ratio that could be achieved was only 0.5. The same two authors later proposed an improved method which increased the output/input ratio to 0.866 by adding zero sequence components to the desired output voltages . Space vector modulation techniques were first employed by Huber in 1989 to control a 3 phase-3 phase matrix converter. Although it was possible to obtain the maximum output input voltage ratio using this technique, it was not possible to control input current displacement factor. After a while the same authers put forward a new paper that uses space vector PWM approach in both input as well as output. By using SVPWM in input and output we obtained a more sinusoidal input current and control of input displacement factor[6].
A drastically different waveform synthesis approach was proposed by P. Zio-
gas[9]. They split the matrix converter into a fictitious rectifier and a fictitious inverter and instead of using the matrix converter to assemble its output voltage directly from consecutive chops of the input voltage, the input voltage was first rectified to create a fictitious dc bus and then inverted at the required output frequency. This technique was referred as the indirect function approach and it allowed the use of well-known techniques for controlling the fictitious rectifier and inverter. A paper by Huber resented a modulation technique which employed space vectors in both the rectifier and inverter.
The use of space vector modulation at the input end allows sinusoidal input current
and control of the input displacement factor. After that many different approaches have been proposed in matrix converter topology includig predictive current loop techniques,fuzzy logic control, hysteresis current control,sliding control modulation etc.[5].
[1] M. Venturini and A. Alesina, “The generalized transformer: A new bidirec-
tional sinusoidal waveform frequency converter with continuously adjustable in-
put power factor,”in Proc. IEEE PESC‘80, 1980, pp. 242 to 252.
[2] Jiacheng Wang,Bin Wu,Dewei (David) Xu,and Navid R. Zargari, “Indirect Space
Vector Based Modulation Techniques for High-Power Multi-Modular Matrix Con-
verters”,.
[3] Patrick W. Wheeler,Jose Rodriguez,Jon C. Clare,Lee Empringham and Alejandro
Weinstein,Matrix Converters: A Technology Review IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS”, VOL. 49, NO. 2, APRIL 2002.
[4] Amit Kumar Gupta,and Ashwin M. Khambadkone,‘Space Vector PWM Scheme
for Multilevel Inverters Based on Two-Level Space Vector PWM”,IEEE TRANS-
ACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 53, NO. 5, OCTOBER
2006.
[5] Roberto A. Petrocelli,“New modulation method for matrix converters”,A thesis
submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment