IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 55, NO.

4, APRIL 2008 1881

Comments on “Lagrangian Modeling and

Passivity-Based Control of Three-Phase
AC/DC Voltage-Source Converters”

Guangjun Tan, Hongjun Chen, and Xiaohua Zhang

Abstract—In the above paper, the author presented a Euler–Lagrange

(EL) model of three-phase pulsewidth modulation ac/dc converters.
However, some problems are worth being discussed in the process of
Lagrangian modeling of the converters. This paper revisits the modeling
of the converters and presents the proper form of the EL model of the
converters.
Index Terms—Euler–Lagrange (EL) equation, generalized coordinates,
pulsewidth-modulation (PWM) converter.
Fig. 1. Power circuit of the three-phase PWM ac/dc boost converter.

PWM converter, and the converter can be totally characterized by the

In the above paper [1], the author presented a Euler–Lagrange (EL) differential equations given as follows:
model of three-phase ac/dc voltage-source converters illustrated in

Fig. 1. According to the general form of the EL equation [2] d ∂T ∂T ∂V ∂D
− + + = FLa (4)
dt ∂ q̇La ∂qLa ∂qLa ∂ q̇La



d ∂L ∂L ∂D d ∂T ∂T ∂V ∂D
− + =F (1) − + + = FLb (5)
dt ∂ q̇ ∂q ∂ q̇ dt ∂ q̇Lb ∂qLb ∂qLb ∂ q̇Lb


and giving the definition q = [ qLa qLb qLc qC ]T (it had been d ∂T ∂T ∂V ∂D
− + + = FC (6)
written as q = [ qLa qLa qLa qC ]T ), Lee [1] gave the scalar dt ∂ q̇C ∂qC ∂qC ∂ q̇C
differential equations (7)–(10) in [1] and derived the EL model of
where FLa , FLb , and FC are the generalized forcing functions of the
(15)–(18) in [1] corresponding to the pulsewidth-modulation (PWM)
corresponding generalized coordinates. Because the variables qLa and
converter under consideration. As the author had not correctly chosen
qLb are the two generalized coordinates selected and qLc is dependent
the generalized coordinates q, it led to the wrong conclusion that the
on the variables qLa and qLb , according to (2), the EL parameters (2)
EL model has the form of (15)–(18) in [1].
and (4) in [1] should be written as follows:
First, we should choose the right generalized coordinates of the
converter. Generalized coordinates are independent variables that can 1  2 2 2

T = L q̇La + q̇Lb + q̇Lc
uniquely define the system. In a system, if there are n variables and 2
s ideal holonomic constraints among the n variables, the number of 2
 2

= L q̇La + q̇Lb + q̇La q̇Lb (7)
generalized coordinates of the system is N = n − s [3]. However,
from the generalized coordinates vector q selected by the author, 1 
2 2 2

D = R q̇La + q̇Lb + q̇Lc
we can get the following identity due to the topology of the circuit 2
configuration:
1

1
2
+ RL q̇C − (pa q̇La + pb q̇Lb + pc q̇Lc )
2 2
q̇La + q̇Lb + q̇Lc = 0. (2) 2
 2

= R q̇La + q̇Lb + q̇La q̇Lb
Equation (2) is valid, because it obeys Kirchhoff’s current law, whether 1

1 1
2
+ RL q̇C − (pa − pc )q̇La − (pb − pc )q̇Lb . (8)
the three-phase ac supply is balanced or not. To integrate (2), we obtain 2 2 2
The generalized forcing function F of the PWM converter should
qLa + qLb + qLc = Q (3) be partial derivatives of the whole supply energy of the system to the
corresponding generalized coordinates, i.e.,
where Q is a constant. From (3), there is one constraint among  T
variables qLa , qLb , and qLc . Thus, the number of generalized coor- ∂W ∂W ∂W
F =
dinates of the PWM converter is 4 − 1 = 3 and not 4, as given in ∂qLa ∂qLb ∂qC
[1]. Consequently, the three generalized coordinates are two of the
variables qLa , qLb , and qLc and the variable qC . In this paper, we where W is the whole supply energy of the PWM converter. According
select q̄ = [ qLa qLb qC ]T as the generalized coordinates of the to (3), we get

W = ea qLa + eb qLb + ec qLc

= (ea − ec )qLa + (eb − ec )qLb + ec Q. (9)
Manuscript received July 17, 2007; revised November 14, 2007.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Harbin Hence, we have
Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China (e-mail: tangjtangj@126.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2008.917065 F = [ ea − ec eb − ec 0 ]T (10)

0278-0046/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE

1882 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 55, NO. 4, APRIL 2008

and parameter (3) in [1] Until now, we have the integrated form (15)–(17) of the PWM
converter. Generally, we can also give the equation of the c phase to
1 2
V = q . (11) make sure that the model has a pretty form, which can be obtained
2C C through [(15) + (16)] × (−1) (noting that q̇Lc = ic ), i.e.,
A direct calculation of (4)–(6) with the aforementioned EL param- dic 1 2ec − ea − eb
eters gives L + Ric + (2pc − pa − pb )vo = . (18)
dt 6 3
d RL In this way, the correct EL model of the PWM converter should
(2Lq̇La + Lq̇Lb ) + 2Rq̇La + Rq̇Lb − (pa − pc )
dt 2 be (15)–(18) given in this paper and not (15)–(18) in [1]. However,
 1 1

× q̇C − (pa − pc )q̇La − (pb − pc )q̇Lb = ea − ec (12) we must acknowledge that the converter has only three generalized
2 2 coordinates, i.e., the converter can be characterized by only the three
d RL differential equations of (15)–(17), and (18) is redundant.
(2Lq̇Lb + Lq̇La ) + 2Rq̇Lb + Rq̇La − (pb − pc ) In the end, by performing Park’s transform [4] on (15)–(17), the
dt 2
 1 1
 EL model of the PWM converter in the synchronous rotating d − q
× q̇C − (pa − pc )q̇La − (pb − pc )q̇Lb = eb − ec (13) frame can be expressed as (21)–(23) in [1]. We do not make any
2 2
1
 1 1
 assumption during this transform. However, to get the same conclusion
qC + RL q̇C − (pa − pc )q̇La − (pb − pc )q̇Lb = 0. (14) from (15)–(18) in [1], the author must make two assumptions: one is
C 2 2
to assume that the three-phase ac supply is balanced, and the other is
From the last equation, we get to assume that symmetric control is adopted, i.e., pa + pb + pc ≡ 0.
Otherwise, [1] could not get the model (21)–(23) in the synchronous
1 1 1
q̇C − (pa − pc )q̇La − (pb − pc )q̇Lb = − qC . rotating d–q frame.
2 2 RL C
Substituting the preceding identity back into (12) and (13) and noting
R EFERENCES
that q̇Lk = ik , k = a, b, and the dc-bus output voltage vo = qC /C, the
EL model corresponding to the PWM converter under consideration [1] T.-S. Lee, “Lagrangian modeling and passivity-based control of three-phase
AC/DC voltage-source converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51,
now takes the form no. 4, pp. 892–902, Aug. 2004.
dia 1 2ea − eb − ec [2] Z. Zhang, H. Liu, and X. Liu, “A novel nonlinear passivity-based control
L +Ria + (2pa − pb − pc )vo = (15) algorithm for active power filter using Euler–Lagrange model,” in Proc.
dt 6 3 2nd IEEE Conf. Ind. Electron. Appl., May 23–25, 2007, pp. 1746–1751.
dib 1 2eb − ea − ec [3] F. Ghorbel, “Modeling and PD control of closed-chain mechanical sys-
L +Rib + (2pb − pa − pc )vo = (16) tems,” in Proc. 34th IEEE Conf. Decision Control, New Orleans, LA,
dt 6 3
Dec. 13–15, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 540–542.
dvo 1 vo
C − (pa ia + pb ib + pc ic )+ = 0. (17) [4] B. K. Bose, Modern Power Electronics and AC Drives. Upper Saddle
dt 2 RL River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001.