Comparison of voltage source converters and Z-source converters for electric vehicles
Source abstract
Abstract
Voltage source and current source converters are used in industrial applications as either boost or buck converters for a defined power flow direction. These operational modes limit these converters to be utilized on their own in hybrid and electric vehicle (EV) applications. Z-source (impedance source) converters, on the other hand, have the capability to be operated as buck and boost converters to have a wide range of output levels. The boost ratio of the direct current link voltage of a Z-source converter is set by short-circuiting the phase legs of the converter and defining the overlap duration at each switching period. In order to have the optimum efficiency with the lowest possible total harmonic distortion, a modified space vector pulse width modulation method with an impedance network could be selected for closed-loop control of the quasi-resonant Z-source converter to drive permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs). In this study, closed-loop vector-controlled drive systems built with two-level and three-level boosted voltage source converter topologies and two- and three-level quasi Z-source converters for field-oriented control of a PMSM in EV motor drive applications were compared under constant motor speed–constant load, constant speed–variable load and variable speed–constant load operating conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Multilevel Inverters and Converters · Advanced DC-DC Converters · Microgrid Control and Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Electrical Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1109/VPPC.2008.467773810.1109/VPPC.2008.4677738 ↗
2. 10.2174/187444430140601133410.2174/1874444301406011334 ↗
3. 10.1109/CCDC.2015.716222410.1109/CCDC.2015.7162224 ↗
4. 10.3390/en1217335010.3390/en12173350 ↗
5. 10.1109/TIA.2003.80892010.1109/TIA.2003.808920 ↗
6. 10.1109/TPEL.2012.220315110.1109/TPEL.2012.2203151 ↗
7. Yongchao C · Electronics · 2016 · 20 · 69
8. 10.5772/5272410.5772/52724 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.06010.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.060 ↗
10. 10.1109/CONTROL.2016.773752710.1109/CONTROL.2016.7737527 ↗
11. 10.1109/TIA.2007.90442210.1109/TIA.2007.904422 ↗
12. 10.1109/TPEL.2012.221962710.1109/TPEL.2012.2219627 ↗
13. 10.1109/IGBSG.2019.888621010.1109/IGBSG.2019.8886210 ↗
14. Xing X · IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2016 · 52 · 1621
15. 10.1109/JESTPE.2019.292772710.1109/JESTPE.2019.2927727 ↗
16. 10.1109/EDM.2014.688254910.1109/EDM.2014.6882549 ↗
17. 10.1109/TIE.2018.279861110.1109/TIE.2018.2798611 ↗
18. 10.1109/MIE.2015.247547510.1109/MIE.2015.2475475 ↗
19. 10.1109/TPEL.2014.231374610.1109/TPEL.2014.2313746 ↗
20. 10.13189/ujeee.2020.07010410.13189/ujeee.2020.070104 ↗
21. 10.1109/TPEL.2016.252710010.1109/TPEL.2016.2527100 ↗
22. 10.1109/CPE.2017.791525310.1109/CPE.2017.7915253 ↗
23. Ayad A · 2015 · 1
24. 10.1109/TPEL.2014.232985910.1109/TPEL.2014.2329859 ↗