energies

Conference Report
Hybrid, Multi-Megawatt HVDC Transformer
Topology Comparison for Future Offshore
Wind Farms
Michael Smailes 1, * , Chong Ng 1 , Paul Mckeever 1 , Jonathan Shek 2 , Gerasimos Theotokatos 3
and Mohammad Abusara 4
1 Research and Disruptive Innovation, Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult (ORE Catapult),
Blyth NE24 1LZ, UK; chong.ng@ore.catapult.org.uk (C.N.); Paul.Mckeever@ore.catapult.org.uk (P.M.)
2 Institute for Energy Systems, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK; J.Shek@ed.ac.uk
3 Naval Architecture, Ocean & Marine, Strathclyde University, Glasgow G1 1XW, UK;
gerasimos.theotokatos@strath.ac.uk
4 Renewable Energy, Exeter University, Exeter EX4 4SB, UK; M.Abusara@exeter.ac.uk
* Correspondence: m.smailes@ed.ac.uk or Michael.Smailes@ORE.Catapult.org.uk; Tel.: +44-(0)1670-54-3008

Academic Editor: Simon Watson

Received: 24 March 2017; Accepted: 13 June 2017; Published: 27 June 2017

Abstract: With the wind industry moving further offshore, High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC)
transmission is becoming increasingly popular. HVDC transformer substations are not optimized
for the offshore industry though, increasing costs and reducing redundancy. A suggested medium
frequency, modular hybrid HVDC transformer located within each wind turbine nacelle could
mitigate these problems, but the overall design must be considered carefully to minimize losses.
This paper’s contribution is a detailed analysis of the hybrid transformer, using practical design
considerations including component library minimization. The configurations investigated include
combinations of single phase H-Bridge and Modular Multilevel Converter topologies operating under
minimum switching frequency control strategies. These were modelled in the MATLAB/Simulink
environment. The impact of the minimum switching control strategy and converter topology on
power transfer stability and overall efficiency is then investigated. It was found that the H-Bridge
converter generated the lowest overall losses, but there was a trade off with power flow sensitivity
due in part to the additional harmonics generated.

Keywords: high voltage direct current; power converters; transformer loss; improved general
Steinmetz equation; Steinmetz equation; wind energy; power transmission

1. Introduction
Over the last decade, the average distance to shore for new wind farms has increased to exploit
the higher and more consistent wind conditions, resulting in more High Voltage Direct Current
(HVDC) connected wind farms [1,2]. The HVDC substation designs used to date are ill-suited for the
offshore environment though. Based on their onshore counterparts, they offer little redundancy and
account for 12% of a wind farm’s capital costs [3–5], most of which is attributed to the structural and
installation costs. To address this, a concept was introduced in [6] to eliminate the offshore substation
by modularizing and miniaturizing the electrical equipment to fit within the turbines themselves.
This hybrid HVDC transformer was investigated as part of a conference paper in [7], and is now
further expanded in this article. As the hybrid HVDC transformer is located within each turbine, the
turbines themselves are connected in parallel directly to a HVDC collection grid (Figure 1). The HVDC
substations are therefore not required, and the system redundancy is improved. To accommodate the

Energies 2017, 10, 851; doi:10.3390/en10070851 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

 Energies 2017, 10, 851 2 of 15

installation, it is proposed that the hybrid HVDC transformer should operate in the Medium
Frequency (MF) range (0.5–2 kHz).
Energies 2017, 10, 851solid state DC-DC transformers have been proposed to mitigate potential magnetic2 of 15
While
transformer design complications [8], such as the increased impact of inter winding lamination and
capacitances, which are particularly prevalent at high frequencies [9,10], their step ratios are limited.
additional equipment
Therefore, within
a magnetic the turbine
transformer and simplify
is required to complyits foundation
with and
the Hybrid installation,
HVDC it isdesign
Transformer proposed
that the hybrid HVDC
specifications. transformer should operate in the Medium Frequency (MF) range (0.5–2 kHz).

Turbine Nacelle HVDC Bus

Hybrid HVDC Transformer
MVDC Offshore Onshore
Bus
AC DC AC Hybrid HVDC AC Grid
Drivetrain
DC AC DC HVDC Cable Transformer
Generator CS p Magnetic CS s HVDC

∼
∼
Rectifier Transformer
DC
MVDC
Turbine Nacelle
HVDC

∼
∼
Hybrid HVDC Transformer AC Line Frequency
MVDC
Bus Transformer
AC DC AC MVDC
Drivetrain Inverter
DC AC DC
Generator CS p Magnetic CS s
Rectifier Transformer

Figure 1. A High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) offshore wind farm using the proposed hybrid
Figure 1. A High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) offshore wind farm using the proposed hybrid HVDC
HVDC transformer to step-up the turbine’s Medium Voltage Direct Current (MVDC) bus to the
transformer to step-up the turbine’s Medium Voltage Direct Current (MVDC) bus to the HVDC grid.
HVDC grid.

While Magnetic,
solid statemedium
DC-DC frequency power transformers
transformers have beenhave been investigated
proposed to mitigate in the literature,
potential but
magnetic
have focused
transformer design on H-Bridge
complications(HB) or[8], full such
bridgeasconfigurations
the increased andimpact
switching of strategies [11–13],lamination
inter winding or the
magnetic transformer design assuming a two or three level input [14,15]. Several multilevel converter
and capacitances, which are particularly prevalent at high frequencies [9,10], their step ratios are
topologies are available though, including the Neutral Point Clamp (NPC) and Cascade HB (CHB).
limited. Therefore, a magnetic transformer is required to comply with the Hybrid HVDC Transformer
These present significant advantages over the HB, including lower converter losses and lower Total
design specifications.
Harmonic Distortion (THD). However, the NPC is known to be unstable [16], requiring additional,
Magnetic, medium
complex circuitry frequency
to balance powervoltages,
capacitor transformers have been
and multiple investigated
voltage sources arein the literature,
required for the but
have CHB,
focused on H-Bridge (HB) or full bridge configurations and switching
which are not available within a HVDC network. The Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC) strategies [11–13], or the
magnetic
does transformer
not suffer from design
such assuming
limitations,a and twoisornowthree
thelevel inputtopology
preferred [14,15]. Several multilevel
for offshore wind HVDCconverter
converter
topologies are stations.
available While
though,it is widely
including recognized that the
the Neutral MMC
Point is superior
Clamp (NPC) to and
the HB, the previous
Cascade HB (CHB).
Theseworks
presenthave focused onadvantages
significant High Voltage (HV),
over the3-phase converters
HB, including connecting
lower to anlosses
converter AC grid and[17,18],
lowerorTotal
have only considered low step ratio transformers [19].
Harmonic Distortion (THD). However, the NPC is known to be unstable [16], requiring additional,
In a practical design, the component library should be minimized wherever possible to reduce
complex circuitry to balance capacitor voltages, and multiple voltage sources are required for the CHB,
both construction and maintenance costs, considerations not made in other analyses. With a high
which are not available within a HVDC network. The Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC) does not
step-up ratio, the primary converter will be subject to a very high current but low voltage stress, while
sufferthefrom such limitations, and is now the preferred topology for offshore wind HVDC converter
secondary converter will experience high voltage but low current stresses. Additionally, as the
stations. While it is widely
operating frequency recognized
of the transformer that the MMC
increases is superior
to reduce to thehybrid
the overall HB, theHVDCprevious works have
transformer’s
focusedsize,on High Voltage
converter switching (HV),
losses3-phase
will becomeconverters connecting to an AC grid [17,18], or have only
appreciable.
considered low these
Given step ratio transformers
application specific [19].
operating conditions, this paper proposes and evaluates three
single
In phase hybrid
a practical HVDC
design, transformer configurations,
the component library shouldcontrolled to minimize
be minimized switching
wherever lossestoand
possible reduce
overcome the practical design limitations. These configurations include
both construction and maintenance costs, considerations not made in other analyses. With a high a HB on both primary and
step-upsecondary
ratio, the(HB-HB),
primarywhich
converterlendswillitselfbetosubject
the high
to aprimary sidecurrent
very high current;butan low
MMC on either
voltage sidewhile
stress,
(MMC-MMC), as it is optimized for the high voltage stress of the secondary, and a HB-MMC
the secondary converter will experience high voltage but low current stresses. Additionally, as the
configuration to investigate the practicality of a hybrid configuration. To constrain the hybrid HVDC
operating frequency of the transformer increases to reduce the overall hybrid HVDC transformer’s
transformer’s switching losses while operating in the MF range, Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) has
size, converter switching
not been used, losses will
and a minimal become
switching appreciable.
frequency module balancing algorithm has been designed
Given
for thethese
MMC. application
This takes specific
advantage operating conditions,
of the smaller modulethiscapacitance
paper proposes andlosses
to reduce evaluates
whilethree
singlemaintaining
phase hybrid stableHVDC
operation. transformer
Operating inconfigurations, controlled
single phase minimizes to switch
the total minimizecount, switching
particularlylosses
and overcome the practical design limitations. These configurations include
for the secondary side converter, where the arm current is very low compared to the switch’s current a HB on both primary
rating.
and secondary (HB-HB), which lends itself to the high primary side current; an MMC on either
side (MMC-MMC), as it is optimized for the high voltage stress of the secondary, and a HB-MMC
configuration to investigate the practicality of a hybrid configuration. To constrain the hybrid HVDC
transformer’s switching losses while operating in the MF range, Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) has
not been used, and a minimal switching frequency module balancing algorithm has been designed for
the MMC. This takes advantage of the smaller module capacitance to reduce losses while maintaining
stable operation. Operating in single phase minimizes the total switch count, particularly for the
secondary side converter, where the arm current is very low compared to the switch’s current rating.
Energies 2017, 10, 851 3 of 15

This paper’s contribution is the detailed evaluation of the HB-HB, MMC-MMC, and HB-MMC
configurations using simulations in the MATLAB/Simulink environment. These simulations are used
to calculate their conduction, switching, and transformer core loss at operating frequencies ranging
from 0.5 to 2 kHz. The magnetic transformer design and winding losses are not considered here for
brevity however, as they have been calculated in [20]. Furthermore, the ability for each configuration
to maintain stable power transfer over the tested frequency range is considered. This will reveal
control stability concerns relating to the HB-HB and HB-MMC configurations and inefficiencies in
the MMC-MMC case, primarily due to the primary side converter. This will impact on the design
considerations for MF transformer design, particularly on the tradeoff between losses and power
transfer stability.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The MATLAB/Simulink models are described in
Section 2. The converter and magnetic transformer loss calculations carried out on the waveforms
generated by the computer modules are detailed in Section 3, and the results presented in Section 4.
These results are discussed in detail in Section 5, and a conclusion is drawn in Section 6.

2. Computer Simulation

2.1. Simulation Models

The models were arbitrarily designed for a 6.5 MW wind turbine with a nominal 6 kV Medium
Voltage Direct Current (MVDC) bus voltage (vin ) between the fully rated generator rectifier and
hybrid transformer (Figure 1). Steady state operation at the rated power was assumed throughout the
simulations with the generator rectifier allowing a variable speed turbine operation. The transformer
output connects to a ±300 kV HVDC via a shunt connection.
The model used to evaluate the performance of each transformer configuration is shown in
generic form in Figure 2, and the converter topologies are shown in Figure 3. In the model, the HVDC
bus is assumed to be constant and is modelled using a DC voltage source. In modern wind turbines,
the MVDC bus voltage is variable to allow the grid side converter to control reactive power flow.
This is reflected in the model by a constant and variable DC voltage source in series, managed by the
primary side converter control. The control of the output real power (Pout ) and reactive power (QT ) are
governed by the algorithms shown in Figure 4, where voltage (vp ) and current (ip ) inputs are taken at
the locations shown in Figure 2. The primary and secondary DC bus resistances are embodied by Rp
and Rs respectively, and the magnetic transformer has a turns ratio of 1:100. It is known that the power
transferred through the transformer (PT ) is given by (1) for a primary and referred secondary voltage
(vp and vs 0 respectively), transformer reactance (XT ), and load angle (δ).

v p vs 0 sin(δ)
PT = (1)
XT

Since vp and vs 0 are fixed by the turbine specifications, the δ range is determined by the transformer
inductance (LT ) and should be selected to maintain stable control and allow 6.5 MW to be transferred.
Moreover, LT was designed to prevent high frequency voltage harmonics generated by switching
events from showing in the arm current and magnetic flux waveforms, and hence prevent core
saturation. With these considerations, LT lumped on the primary side was chosen to be 0.1 mH.
Energies 2017, 10, 851 4 of 15

Energies 2017, 10, 851 4 of 15

Energies 2017, 10, 851 4 of 15
Switch Switch
δ Gate Control Gate Control
Pulses Pulses
Rp δ idc p Switch Switch Rs idc s
a Gate Control Pulses Pulses
Gate Control
a
Rp idc p Rs idc s
a a
ip LT 1:N is vs
VMVDC b b
ip LT 1:N is vs
VMVDC b b
Primary vp v Secondary VHVDC
vin s vs
Converter Converter
Primary vp v Secondary VHVDC
s vs c Converter
vvar vin Converter c
vvar c c is
vvar
vp ip is
vvar Rs idc s
Rp idc p
d vp ip d
Rp idc p Rs idc s
d d

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Generic
Generic computer
computer model
model used
used to
to evaluate
evaluate each
each transformer
transformer configuration.
configuration.
Figure 2. Generic computer model used to evaluate each transformer configuration.
The different transformer configurations are achieved by inserting one of two topologies (Figure 3)
The different transformer configurations are achieved by inserting one of two topologies (Figure
into theThe
primary (CStransformer
p ) and secondary (CSs ) converter blocks in Figureone
2. Connection points a and d
3) into the different
primary (CS configurations are achieved by inserting of two topologies
p) and secondary (CSs) converter blocks in Figure 2. Connection points a and
(Figure
are3)positive
into the and negative
primary (CS p)DC
andbus points respectively,
secondary (CS while
s) converter b and
blocks in cFigure
are the
2. AC live andpoints
Connection neutrala points.
and
d are positive and negative DC bus points respectively, while b and c are the AC live and neutral
In dboth
are converters,
positive andeach valveDC
negative is composed
bus points of n Insulated-Gate
respectively, while bBipolar Transistors
and c are (IGBTs)
the AC live in series
and neutral
points. In both converters, each valve is composed of n Insulated-Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBTs) in
andpoints. In both
parallel converters,
to withstand theeach valveand
voltage is composed of n Insulated-Gate
current stresses. Bipolar Transistors
The y Sub Modules (IGBTs)
(SMs) in the MMCinare
series and parallel to withstand the voltage and current stresses. The y Sub Modules (SMs) in the
series and
composed of parallel to withstand
two valves (Vy and Vx they )voltage and current
and a module stresses.
capacitor CmodThe
. y Sub Modules (SMs) in the
MMC are composed of two valves (Vy and Vxy) and a module capacitor Cmod.
MMC are composed of two valves (Vy and Vxy) and a module capacitor Cmod.
Valve Valve
Valve Valve
a a iarm 1
a a iarm 1
V
iarm iarm V11 SM1 S1 S1
i 1 i 2 SM
CC1 1
arm 1 arm 2
S1S SS2 1
1 2
Vnn
V SM
SM 2 Sn Sn
2
Arm1 1
Arm
SM
SM y y
Sub-
Sub-
bb b b
c c Module
Module
cc VxVx
S3S3 SS4 4 SM
SM y+1y+1
y y

VyVy
CC2 2 Arm
Arm2 2 SM
SMy+2y+2
Cmod
Cmod vcy vcy

dd
iarm3 3
iarm iarm44
iarm dd iarm2 2 SM
iarm SM2y 2y

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 3. Converter topologies used to evaluate different transformer configurations (a) H-Bridge
Figure 3.3.Converter
Convertertopologies
topologiesused
used
to to evaluate
evaluate different
different transformer
transformer configurations (a) H-Bridge
Figure
(HB) and (b) Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC). Abbreviation: SMconfigurations
= Sub Module.(a) H-Bridge (HB)
(HB) and (b) Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC). Abbreviation: SM
and (b) Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC). Abbreviation: SM = Sub Module. = Sub Module.

2.2. Active and Reactive Power Control Algorithms

2.2. Active and Reactive Power Control Algorithms
2.2. Active and Reactive Power Control Algorithms
Direct Quadrature Zero (dq0) based control systems are normally used in power converters as
they
Direct Quadrature
provide
Zero
stable DCZero
(dq0)
control
based control
signals.
systems are normally used in power by converters as
Direct Quadrature (dq0) basedThe voltage
control and current
systems readings
are normally are in
used provided a Phase as
power converters
they
Lock provide stable DC control
Loop (PLL) signals. The voltage and current readings are provided by a Phase
they provide stableconnected
DC control to the grid side,
signals. The as clean (low
voltage and Total
currentHarmonic
readings Distortion (THD))
are provided bysignals
a Phase
Lock
are Loop (PLL)
required. connected
While the HB to
was the grid
operated side,
with asa clean
0.33 (low
duty Total
ratio, Harmonic
the induced Distortion
harmonics (THD))
were too signals
high
Lock Loop (PLL) connected to the grid side, as clean (low Total Harmonic Distortion (THD)) signals
are required. Whileor the HB wascontrol
operated with a without
0.33 duty ratio, thefiltering.
inducedThisharmonics were toothe
high
arefor reliable PLL
required. While dq0
the based
HB was operated operation
with a 0.33 dutysignificant
ratio, the induced impacted
harmonics both
were too
forcontrol
reliable PLL or and
response dq0 based control
stability. A operation
single phase without
control significantsuitable
algorithm filtering.
forThis
all impacted
of the both the
converter
high for reliable PLL or dq0 based control operation without significant filtering. This impacted both
control response and wasstability. A single phase control algorithm suitable forproposed
all of the converter
thetopologies examined
control response therefore
and stability. Aderived
single (Figure 4) to ensure
phase control consistency.
algorithm suitableThe algorithm
for all of the converter
topologies examined
contains integrals was therefore
which have beenderived
known to (Figure
create4) to ensure consistency.
instabilities; The proposed
this was mitigated through algorithm
careful
topologies examined was therefore derived (Figure 4) to ensure consistency. The proposed algorithm
contains
tuning. integrals which
This control have was
structure beenusedknownas itto create instabilities;
provided a simple methodthis was mitigated
to compare the through careful
performance
contains integrals which have been known to create instabilities; this was mitigated through careful
tuning. This control structure was used as it provided a simple method to compare the performance
tuning. This control structure was used as it provided a simple method to compare the performance of
Energies 2017, 10, 851 5 of 15

each converter
Energies 2017, 10, topology,
851 and while it is included for reference, the focus of this paper is the converter’s
5 of 15
performance and not its control.
of each converterconverter
The primary topology, controller
and whilewasit is used
included for reference,
to govern the transfer
the power focus of through
this paper
theis hybrid
the
converter’s performance and not its control.
HVDC transformer by comparing the calculated output power (1) to a reference value. The difference
The primary converter controller was used to govern the power transfer through the hybrid
was fed into a Proportional Integrator (PI) to calculate the required δ to correct the error in the
HVDC transformer by comparing the calculated output power (1) to a reference value. The difference
output power.
was fed into a Proportional Integrator (PI) to calculate Z the required δ to correct the error in the output
power. Pout = f re f vout iout ·dt (2)

The hybrid HVDC transformer should=be operated at a∙ unity power factor to maximize efficiency, (2)
necessitating the control of reactive power. However, the high THD present in vp and ip , particularly
in the HB
The configurations,
hybrid HVDC makes this complicated,
transformer as their magnitudes
should be operated are notfactor
at a unity power accurately calculated
to maximize
byefficiency, necessitating
the Fast Fourier the control
Transform (FFT)ofand
reactive
the timepower. However,
domain does the
nothigh THDprovide
directly present their and ip, (θ).
in vp phase
Aparticularly in the HB configurations,
combined approach makes this
was therefore taken, complicated,
where as their magnitudes
θ was calculated using an FFTareand
not time
accurately
domain
calculated by
calculations theused
were Fast Fourier Transform
to determine (FFT) andpower
the apparent the time
(STdomain
). does not directly provide their
phase (θ). A combined approach was therefore taken, where θ was calculated using an FFT and time
v
domain calculations wereu u used to
Z determine
" the
Z apparent
2  power (STZ). 2 #
ST = t f re f v p − f re f v p ·dt · i p − f re f i p ·dt ·dt (3)
2 2
ST = fref vp -f vp ·dt · ip -fref ip ·dt ·dt (3)
ref
To eliminate any possible DC elements in the vp and ip measurements, their means were calculated
To eliminate
and subtracted fromany
the possible
recordedDC elements
values. in the vpower
The reactive p and was
ip measurements, their
then calculated means were
from:
calculated and subtracted from the recorded values. The reactive power was then calculated from:
= ST∙ ·sin(
QT = sin(θ)) (4) (4)

Reactive Power Control Algorithm

|u | -
-}
/_ u
- FFT
vθ Magnitude
Sin + Angle
θ - |u | -
-}
/_ u
- FFT
iθ Magnitude
Angle
v var PI -1 X
To v var Qp _ +
1
_ u2 + vp
v p rms \/u f ref
- 1
_
s - _ f ref
+
1
_ From vp
Integrator Square vp s
Sp
Root z - 1
_ Integrator
X Period Delay z
Period Delay
_ +
1
_ u 2 + ip
i p rms \/u f ref
- 1
_
s - _ f ref
+
1
_ From i p
Integrator Square ip s
Root z - 1
_ Integrator
Period Delay z
Period Delay

Real Power Control Algorithm

v out
1
_ From vout
δ PI +- f ref + s X
- 1
_ Integrator
To Gate Control z I out
Period Delay
From v out
Pref
Input

Figure 4. Real
Figure Real and
andreactive
reactivepower
powercontrol
controlalgorithm.
algorithm.

A PI was then used to calculate the revised primary DC bus voltage based on the difference
A PI was then used to calculate the revised primary DC bus voltage based on the difference
between the calculated reactive power and its reference (0 MVar). In practice, the bus voltage is raised
between the calculated reactive power and its reference (0 MVar). In practice, the bus voltage is raised
by reducing Pout with respect to the power generated, or lowered by decreasing it. However, as the
bybus
reducing Pout with
is represented
respect to the power generated, or lowered by decreasing it. However, as the
by a DC source in the model, its voltage magnitude is raised or lowered to achieve
bus is represented
the same effect. by a DC source in the model, its voltage magnitude is raised or lowered to achieve
the same effect.
2.3. MMC Control Algorithm
bypassed when Sy is conducting to create the desired voltage steps. Sxy and Sy must never both
conduct though, or the module capacitor will be short-circuited. Multiple module combinations are
possible for each voltage level, apart from the maximum and minimum voltage level (Figure 5).
An algorithm can therefore be devised to provide the desired output voltage waveform while
balancing the module capacitor voltages, such that each remains at the average voltage. This
Energies 2017, 10, 851 6 of 15
algorithm determines the switching strategy of the converter, and hence directly influences the
switching losses and quality of the AC and DC waveforms. Algorithms utilizing PWM have been
suggested
2.3. in the literature
MMC Control Algorithm[21] to improve capacitor voltage balancing, as the instantaneous duty of
each module is reduced. The module capacitor voltage remains closer to the average module voltage
While the same algorithms used for the HB are used to control P and Q, the MMC requires a
and DC ripple is minimized. However, this will increase the switching frequency of the converter
more complex switching algorithm to balance the module capacitor voltages (vc ). Depending on the
and increase losses.
direction of the arm current (iarm ), the module capacitors will either charge or discharge when they
As the converters analyzed here are to operate in the MF range, the switching losses for PWM
are switched in or placed in the current path. Modules are switched in when Sxy is conducting and
would be too great. That said, the higher switching frequency also reduces the effect of the DC ripple.
bypassed when Sy is conducting to create the desired voltage steps. Sxy and Sy must never both
An alternative control algorithm (Figure 6) has therefore been developed, taking advantage of the
conduct though, or the module capacitor will be short-circuited. Multiple module combinations are
reduced DC ripple for the purposes of this study.
possible for each voltage level, apart from the maximum and minimum voltage level (Figure 5).

Valve Logic
1 1 1 0 1
S1
0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0
S2
1 1 1 0 1
1 0 1 1 1
S3
0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0
S4
1 0 1 1 1
0 1 0 0 0
S1x
1 1 1 0 1
1 1 1 0 1
S2x
0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
S3x
1 0 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 1
S4x
0 0 0 1 0
1

-1

Figure 5.
Figure Switching pattern
5. Switching pattern for
for aa 3L
3L MMC.
MMC.

An algorithm can therefore be devised to provide Gate Pulse the desired output voltage waveform while

balancing the module capacitor voltages, such that each remains at the average voltage. This algorithm
determines the switching strategy of the converter, Yes da
_and No
ref
dt > 0
hence directly influences the switching losses
and quality of the AC and DC waveforms. Algorithms utilizing PWM have been suggested in the
literature [21] to improve Yes capacitor
i >0
arm
No voltage balancing, as the instantaneous Yes
arm
duty
i >0
No of each module is

reduced. The module capacitor voltage remains closer to the average module voltage and DC ripple is
minimized. However, this will increase the switching frequency of the converter and increase losses.
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Arm 1 Arm 1 Arm 1 Arm 1
As the converters analyzed here are to operate in the MF range, the switching losses for PWM
would Findbe too great.
module That said,Find
Find module
the higher switching
module Find module frequency
Find module also reduces
Find module
the effect of the DC
Find module Find ripple.
module
with max Vcy with min Vcy with min Vcy with max Vcy with min V cy with max Vcy with max Vcy with min Vcy
An alternative control algorithm (Figure 6) has therefore been developed, taking advantage of the
reduced DC ripple
Corresponding
for the purposes
Corresponding Corresponding
of this study.
Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding
Module off Module on Module off Module on Module on Module off Module on Module off

Figure 6. Flow diagram of module capacitor voltage balancing algorithm for MMC.
 1

-1

Energies 2017, 10, 851 7 of 15

Figure 5. Switching pattern for a 3L MMC.

Gate Pulse

Yes da
_ref No
dt > 0

Yes No Yes No
i arm > 0 i arm > 0

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Arm 1 Arm 1 Arm 1 Arm 1

Find module Find module Find module Find module Find module Find module Find module Find module
with max Vcy with min Vcy with min Vcy with max Vcy with min V cy with max Vcy with max Vcy with min Vcy

Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding

Module off Module on Module off Module on Module on Module off Module on Module off

Figure 6. Flow diagram of module capacitor voltage balancing algorithm for MMC.

The proposed control algorithm reduces switching losses by minimizing the number of switching
operations per cycle, while effectively balancing the module capacitor voltages. In the rising interval
of the reference waveform, the algorithm searches for, and switches out, the module in Arm 1 with
the greatest capacitor voltage when iarm is positive. If the current is negative, the module with the
lowest voltage is switched out. This module is then removed from the selection process until the
reference voltage gradient becomes negative. At this point, all of the modules are placed once again
into the decision matrix, and if the arm current is positive the module with the lowest voltage is
switched in; otherwise, the highest voltage module is used. The algorithm selects the modules in Arm
2 similarly, except the inverse reference voltage gradients are used. In this way, the duty ratio of each
module varies between cycles to effectively balance the capacitor voltages. However, each module
only switches in and out once per cycle, minimizing switching losses.

3. Transformer Loss Calculation

3.1. Converter Losses

The core, switching, and conduction losses were calculated in MATLAB based on the results
generated by the converter simulations. The converter losses were calculated based on the parameters
of the chosen IGBT, the Infineon FD300R12KS4_B5 with a rated voltage and current of Vce rate = 1.2 kV
and Ic rate = 400 A, respectively. This fast switching IGBT was selected as it was found to be the most
efficient in the MF range, and was used for both the CSp and CSs to simplify their construction and
maintenance. In the loss calculation, the junction temperature was assumed to be at the rated value
(125 ◦ C), a reasonable assumption since the wind turbine was operating at rated power.
It is known that in semiconductors, the on resistance (Ron ) and losses during switching vary
with collector current ic . This relationship was not adequately accounted for by Simulink, so ideal
switches were used in the simulations and in the conduction and switching losses calculated later in
MATLAB. The switch datasheets provided by the manufacturer were used to derive equations relating
ic to vce and the diode forward voltage (vF ) through the use of a curve fitting tool. Combining with
the piecewise linear current waveforms from the Simulink models, the conduction loss (Pcon ) can be
calculated as follows:
EScony = n· ∑ icy,i ·vcey,i · Tstep (5)
i =1

EDcony = n· ∑ i F y,i ·v Fy,i · Tstep (6)

i =1

1
Tcycle y∑
Pcon = · EScony + EDcony (7)
=1
Energies 2017, 10, 851 8 of 15

where Tstep is the length of each time step i, EScon and EDcon are the conduction energy losses for the
IGBT and diode for the yth valve composed of n IGBTs and antiparallel diodes, and Tcycle is the period
over which the energy calculation took place.
A similar method can be used to derive an equation relating the switching (EIGBT ) and reverse
recovery (EDiode ) losses for the IGBT and antiparallel diode to Ic or IF , respectively, to calculate the
switching losses. Here, a switching operation is determined to have occurred when Ic or IF increases or
decreases from 0, respectively. The total switching loss (Pswitch ) can therefore be calculated from:

ESstotal = n· ∑ EIGBTy (8)

y =1

EDstotal = n· ∑ EDiode y (9)

y =1

EDstotal + ESstotal
Pswitch = (10)
Tcycle
where the IGBT energy loss is given by ESstotal , the diode reverse recovery loss is given by EDstotal , and
EIGBT and EDiode are the switching and reverse recovery losses for each IGBT, respectively.

3.2. Core Losses

Magnetics’ Material F was chosen for the magnetic transformer core in the calculations, as this
ferrite material has been designed to operate in the MF range. Traditionally, core loss is calculated
using the Steinmetz Equation (SE) shown below in (11).

pcore = k f reα f B̂ β (11)

where pcore is the per volume power loss for the magnetic core, B̂ is the maximum flux density, and k,
α, and β are constants collectively named the Steinmetz Parameters. The SE is only valid for sinusoidal
flux density waveforms though [22], and so cannot be used in this analysis. The power electric
converters on either side of the magnetic transformer create stepped, square voltage waveforms.
From (12), it can be seen that flux density is the integral of voltage and so is also non-sinusoidal.

1
Z
B= v(t)dt (12)
N Ae

where B is the flux density waveform, N is the number of turns, Ae the effective core area, and v(t) the
time varying voltage.
With the proliferation of power electronics applications, many equations now exist in the literature
to calculate the core losses emanating from non-sinusoidal flux density waveforms. These can be
broadly categorized into three groups: separation of core loss components, macroscopic energy or
statistical domain wall calculations, and empirical calculations. That said, the former two groups
require parameters not readily provided by core manufacturers, complicating their use [23–25].
As the empirical formulae in this group are based on the SE, often only the Steinmetz parameters
are required in the calculation. In recent years, the accuracy of this method has greatly improved,
particularly after the introduction of the improved General Steinmetz Equation (iGSE) in 2003 [26].
Even so, many in the industry continue to use the SE by taking the Fourier Transform of the waveform
(FTSE). The calculated core loss of each harmonic is then summed using vector addition to find the
total loss. Due to its simplicity, the FTSE was initially considered over using the iGSE, but later rejected
for the reasons detailed below.
In [27], the loss predictions of three empirical formulae including the iGSE, SE, and FTSE were
compared to experimentally measured core losses. The iGSE was found to perform best overall for the
voltage waveforms tested: sinusoid, distorted sinusoid (10% THD), triangular, 33% duty ratio square,
Energies 2017, 10, 851 9 of 15

and 50% duty ratio square wave. The accuracy of the FTSE fell significantly for the square wave cases,
performing worse than the SE in most situations. Based on this, the iGSE was chosen to calculate the
core loss in this study.
A detailed description of the iGSE is given in [26], and only a brief overview of its implementation
is given here. The flux density waveform is first split into nc individual cycles, and then further into
its rising and falling sections; i.e., the cycle’s global minimum to maximum and global maximum
to minimum, respectively. If there are multiple global maxima or minima, either can be chosen. An
example flux density waveform is shown in Figure 7. It has been split into its rising and falling sections,
with the minor loops in each identified in red; the black line forms the major loop of the rising and
Energies 2017,
falling 10, 851
sections. 9 of 15

Figure 7. Splitting of an example flux density waveform into its major and minor loops.

An algorithm,
An algorithm, loosely
loosely based
based on on rain
rain flow
flow analysis,
analysis, was was used
used herehere to to identify
identify andand separate
separate each each
minor loop from the major loops. Taking the rising section as an
minor loop from the major loops. Taking the rising section as an example, the algorithm adds each example, the algorithm adds each
point in
point in turn
turn to
to aafirst
firstset,
set,ss1,,until
untilaanegative
negativegradient
gradientisisdetected,
detected,i.e., i.e.,point
pointJ in
J in Figure
Figure 7. 7.
AA newnew setset
is
1
is then created (s 1+1), and each point is added to this until either the next negative gradient is reached
then created (s1+1 ), and each point is added to this until either the next negative gradient is reached (J’),
(J’), after
after which which an additional
an additional set is created
set is created or the end or the endsection
of the of theissection
reached. is Each
reached.set isEach
thenset is then
examined,
examined,
starting starting
at the final at setthe
sq . final
Any set sq. Any
points points
greater than greater
the set’s than the set’s
initial initial flux
flux density, i.e.,density,
point J’i.e.,
for point
the last J’
for the last set in this example or point J for the second set, are moved
set in this example or point J for the second set, are moved to the lower set, i.e., sq−1 , until the firstto the lower set, i.e., sq−1, until

the sfirst
set set s1 is reached. Now s1 contains a monotonically increasing major loop with sets s1+1 to sq
1 is reached. Now s1 contains a monotonically increasing major loop with sets s1+1 to sq holding
holding
each minor each minor
loop. Theloop.
power The power
loss loss be
can then cancalculated
then be calculated
separatelyseparately
for each loop for each loop using
and cycle and cycle
(13)
using
and (14).(13) and (14).
k
k iGSE = = α−1 β−α R 2π
(13)
(2π)) ∙·22 | cosθ | α
dθ (13)
(2 0 | |
Z To  α
1 dB
k iGSE   (∆B) β−α dt
 
po = 1 (14)
= T o 0 dt (∆ ) (14)
or, as a discrete function:
k iGSE ∆Bα−1  δBi α
 
or, as a discrete function:
po =
To ∑  δti  δti
 (15)
∆ i =1
= (15)
The total core loss is then determined by a weighted average of the power from each loop,
as in (16), and the average loss of all of the cycles of the waveform calculated by applying (17).
The total core loss is then determined by a weighted average of the power from each loop, as in
(16), and the average loss of all of the cycles of the waveform To calculated by applying (17).
pcorel = ∑ po (16)
o =1
T cycle
= (16)

1
= (17)
Energies 2017, 10, 851 10 of 15

1
pcore =
nc ∑ pcore l (17)
l =1

where po is the core loss for each major or sub loop of the lth cycle, δBi and δti are the change in flux
and time between time step i and i−1, and Tcycle and To are the periods of the cycle of the oth loop.
Using the core loss vs. flux density and frequency data from the core manufacturer’s data sheet,
the Steinmetz parameters can be calculated from the three dimensional linear regression the logarithm
of (11), shown in (18)  

ln( pcore ) = K + α ln f re f + β ln B̂ (18)

where K is the natural log of k. The Steinmetz parameters for the Magnetics F material core were
calculated over the 500 Hz to 2000 Hz range to ensure a good fit and are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Calculated Steinmetz Parameters.

Frequency Range (Hz) k α β

500–2000 Hz 230.76 1.09 2.81

As the magnetic transformer design is outside the scope of this paper, the flux density waveform
was derived as follows. The number of primary turns was set at 10 and held constant for each
simulation, allowing the flux waveform (θ) to be calculated from (12), given that:

θ = BAe . (19)

Then, assuming the maximum permissible flux density (Bmax ) is 90% of the core’s saturation flux
density (Bsat ) and the core volume and hence area should be minimized, Ae can be found from (20).
 
θ̂ 
Ae = (20)
Bmax

The flux density waveform is then merely calculated by rearranging (19).

4. Results
The results from the three hybrid HVDC transformer topologies—comparing the converter and
magnetic transformer core efficiencies and control stability—are presented in this section. While
winding losses are not considered in the analysis, they have been shown to be small compared to the
converter losses, and so have a limited effect on the transformer’s topology [20].
The MMC-MMC topology was run with three different combinations of modules on the primary
and secondary converters, while only one combination was run for the HB-HB and HB-MMC
topologies. The first MMC-MMC combination (7-11L MMC) consists of a 7 level (7L) CSp with
six modules, as this is the optimum number of Voltage Levels (OVL) at 500 Hz, and was paired with
an 11L CSs . The OVL is defined here as the fewest voltage levels and hence modules required to
withstand peak voltage (including safety margin) with only one series connected to the IGBT in each
module valve. In the second combination (11-11L MMC), an 11L CSp was paired with an 11L CSs to
demonstrate the impact of increasing the number of CSp levels above the minimum requirement to
withstand the applied voltage stress. In the third combination (11-25L MMC), an 11L CSp was paired
with a 25L CSs to investigate increasing the number of CSs levels. In practice, the CSs would consist of
hundreds of modules to resist the exhibited voltage stress, resulting in the generation of many levels.
A very high number of switching elements would be required to generate such a waveform, greatly
increasing the computational time for such a model. By limiting the CSs to 25L and only modelling the
IGBT valves in each module (i.e., Figure 8), the model’s run time was greatly reduced while allowing
the impact of increasing the number of voltage levels on transformer performance to be investigated.
Energies 2017, 10, 851 11 of 15

It should be noted that the number of switches within the valves were varied to resist the different
voltage and current stresses of each configuration. This did not impact on simulation time, as only the
valves 2017,
Energies were10,
simulated
851 as the number of switches was only taken into account for the loss calculations.
11 of 15

45
HB_0.5 HB_2 100
40 HB
HB-MMC_0.5 HB-MMC_2 90
7-11L MMC_0.5 7-11L MMC_2 HB-MMC
35 11-11L MMC_0.5 11-11L MMC_2 80
7-11L MMC
11-25L MMC_0.5 11-25L MMC_2 70
30
Pout [MW]

Vin/LVDCnom [%]
11-11L MMC
25 60 11-25L MMC
50
20
40
15
30
10 20
5 10

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 500 800 1100 1400 1700 2000
δ [o] Frequency [Hz]

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 8.
8. (a)
(a) Power
Power output
output for
for MMC
MMC andand HB
HB configurations
configurations vs.
vs. increasing
increasing load
load angles
angles at
at 0.5
0.5 kHz
kHz and
and
22 kHz; (b) Voltage increase due to Q T compensation vs. increasing frequencies.
kHz; (b) Voltage increase due to QT compensation vs. increasing frequencies.

As stated
4.1. Power Controlpreviously, reactive power was controlled in the simulations by increasing or
decreasing the primary side bus voltage. As a result, the amount of reactive power support needed
for each response of Pout
Theconfiguration with increasing
is indicated by thefrequency
increase in and is shown
theδMVDC busin voltage
Figure 8a for the
above itsthree topologies
nominal value.
operating at 0.5 and 2 kHz. Since the HB-HB and HB-MMC configurations
This increase has therefore been plotted in Figure 8b against frequency, and shows that the amounthave a higher gradient than
the MMC-MMC configuration, it can be said that their control is more
of compensation required increases with frequency for all cases. The MMC-MMC configuration, sensitive. Therefore, a small
deviation inrequires
however, δ can translate to large response
significantly in Pout , potentially
more compensation than destabilizing
either the the control,
HB-HB orespecially
HB-MMC in
the lower frequency range. While this does improve at higher frequencies,
configurations. In the most extreme case, i.e., operating at 2 kHz, the MMC-MMC configuration the lower gradient offered
by the MMC-MMC
voltage increases byconfiguration
110% compared provides
to onlyimproved
10% in the stability
HB-HB across the whole cases.
and HB-MMC frequency
There range.
is also a
As stated previously, reactive power was controlled in the simulations
marginal increase in reactive power compensation in the MMC-MMC configurations as the number by increasing or decreasing
themodules
of primaryon side
thebus
CSpvoltage.
increases,As a result, the
particularly at amount of reactive power support needed for each
higher frequencies.
configuration is indicated by the increase in the MVDC bus voltage above its nominal value. This
increase
4.2. Systemhas therefore been plotted in Figure 8b against frequency, and shows that the amount of
Losses
compensation required increases with frequency for all cases. The MMC-MMC configuration, however,
The calculated losses for the magnetic transformer core and the converter are shown in Figure 9
requires significantly more compensation than either the HB-HB or HB-MMC configurations. In the
for the whole MF range. The HB-HB and HB-MMC configurations have very similar converter losses,
most extreme case, i.e., operating at 2 kHz, the MMC-MMC configuration voltage increases by 110%
as shown in Figure 9a, and increase fairly linearly with frequency. The losses for the 7-11L MMC
compared to only 10% in the HB-HB and HB-MMC cases. There is also a marginal increase in reactive
configuration are very similar to the HB-HB configuration at 0.5 kHz, but suddenly increase at 0.6
power compensation in the MMC-MMC configurations as the number of modules on the CSp increases,
kHz, where they increase linearly up to 1.7 kHz before rapidly increasing again. The losses of the 11-
particularly at higher frequencies.
11L and 11-25L MMC configurations also increase linearly up to 1.7 kHz before suddenly rising. This
is because
4.2. Systemas the frequency increases, the MVDC bus voltage also increases (Figure 8b), as well as the
Losses
voltage stress experienced by each module. Therefore, as the frequency rises, each MMC
The calculated
configuration losses for and
will approach the magnetic
fall below transformer
its OVL when core and
the the converter
number are shown
of switches in Figure
in each valve9
for the whole MF range. The HB-HB and HB-MMC configurations have very
doubles, significantly increasing converter losses as they become overrated. This occurs at 0.6 kHz similar converter losses,
as shown
for the 7-11L in Figure
and 1.79a,kHz and
forincrease
the 11-11L fairly
andlinearly with frequency.
11-25L MMC configurations. The losses for the 7-11L MMC
configuration are very similar to the HB-HB configuration at 0.5 kHz, but suddenly increase at 0.6 kHz,
where
4.5 they increase linearly up to 1.7 kHz before rapidly 100 increasing again. The losses of the 11-11L
HB HB
and 411-25L MMC configurations also increase linearly 90 up to 1.7 kHz before suddenly rising. This is
HB-MMC HB-MMC
80
because
3.5 as the frequency increases, the MVDC bus voltage7-11L
7-11L MMC
also increases (Figure 8b), as well as the
MMC
voltage
3 stress OVL 70
experienced by each module. Therefore, as the11-11L frequency rises, each MMC configuration
Pcore [kW/m3]

MMC
Ploss [%]

11-11L MMC
60
will2.5approach and fall below its OVL when the number of switches
11-25L MMC 11-25L MMCin each valve doubles, significantly
50
increasing
2 converter losses as they become overrated. This occurs at 0.6 kHz for the 7-11L and 1.7 kHz
40
for 1.5
the 11-11L and 11-25L MMC configurations. 30
1 20
0.5 10
0 0
500 800 1100 1400 1700 2000 500 800 1100 1400 1700 2000
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(a) (b)
11L and 11-25L MMC configurations also increase linearly up to 1.7 kHz before suddenly rising. This
is because as the frequency increases, the MVDC bus voltage also increases (Figure 8b), as well as the
voltage stress experienced by each module. Therefore, as the frequency rises, each MMC
configuration will approach and fall below its OVL when the number of switches in each valve
doubles,
Energies significantly
2017, 10, 851 increasing converter losses as they become overrated. This occurs at 0.6
12 kHz
of 15
forEnergies
the 7-11L and 1.7
2017, 10, 851
kHz for the 11-11L and 11-25L MMC configurations. 12 of 15

4.5 100
Figure
HB 9. Normalized losses for the: (a) Converter and (b)
HB Transformer core over the medium
4 90
frequency
HB-MMC (MF) range. HB-MMC
3.5 80
7-11L MMC 7-11L MMC
3
The core
MMClosses of
OVL
all hybrid
transformer configurations
11-11Lincrease
70
steadily with frequency as

Pcore [kW/m3]
MMC
Ploss [%]

11-11L
60
shown
2.5 11-25L MMC
in Figure 9b. However, while the converter losses11-25L MMC
differed significantly for each hybrid
50
transformer
2 configuration, the transformer core losses are remarkably similar, although those of the
40
MMC-MMC
1.5 topologies are marginally smaller. 30
1 20
5.0.5Discussion
10
0
The results show the HB-HB and HB-MMC configurations 0 to be less stable than their MMC-
500 800 1100 1400 1700 2000 500 800 1100 1400 1700 2000
MMC counterparts, particularlyFrequency [Hz] at lower frequencies, due to two main drivers. Firstly, from Figure
Frequency [Hz]

10, a small rise in δ results in large rise of ip and Pout in the HB-HB configuration. The MMC-MMC
configurations have a much (a) lower THD though, resulting in a smaller change (b) in the voltage drop
across LT. The rise in Pout is therefore also smaller, thereby improving the converter’s stability.
Figure 9. Normalized losses for the: (a) Converter and (b) Transformer core over the medium frequency
Secondly, the peak primary voltage created by the HB converter is twice that of the MMC converter.
(MF) range.
As Pout is calculated from (1) and vp ≈ vcp, doubling vcp means sin δ must reduce by a factor of four to
keep Pout constant. Power is therefore more sensitive to small changes in δ. While increasing the
The core
number losses ofturns—and
of primary all hybrid hence
transformer
LT—could configurations
mitigate this, increase
e.g., withsteadily
a turnswith
ratiofrequency
of 1:100, it as shown
would
in greatly
Figure 9b. However,
affect the hybrid while the converter
transformer volume. losses
Given differed significantly
this, the MMC-MMCfor each hybridmay
configuration transformer
prove
configuration,
better at lower thefrequencies
transformer forcore losseshybrid
the given are remarkably
transformer similar, although those of the MMC-MMC
parameters.
topologiesThe are marginally
MMC-MMC smaller.
requires a lot of reactive power compensation though, due to the large load
angle required to transfer the desired real power. This is achieved though increasing the MVDC bus
5. Discussion
voltage; however, it is envisioned that this would be limited to ±15% of the nominal value, limiting
theThe
operational
results showfrequency
the HB-HBof theandMMC-MMC
HB-MMCconfiguration
configurations to to
around
be less700 Hz. than
stable However, this could
their MMC-MMC
be improvedparticularly
counterparts, by decreasing LT through
at lower reducing
frequencies, thetonumber
due two main of primary
drivers.windings,
Firstly, from although
FigureA10,
e would
a small
have to increase to compensate for the increased flux.
rise in δ results in large rise of ip and Pout in the HB-HB configuration. The MMC-MMC configurations
The core losses for all of the hybrid transformer topologies are very similar and small compared
have a much lower THD though, resulting in 3a smaller change in the voltage drop across LT . The
to the converter losses. If a core volume of 1 m at 500 Hz is assumed, then the core losses would be
rise in Pout is therefore also smaller, thereby improving the converter’s stability. Secondly, the peak
0.33% compared to 1% converter loss for the HB-HB configuration. Clearly, converter losses dominate
primary voltage created by the HB converter is twice that of the MMC converter. As Pout is calculated
core losses, demonstrating the importance of the converter’s design. While the literature [28] suggests
from (1) and vp ≈
that the MMC
vcp , doubling
configuration
v lower
hascp
means sin δ must reduce by a factor of four to keep Pout constant.
losses, this is based on the HB using Pulse Width Modulation
Power is therefore more sensitive
(PWM). Without PWM, the HB-HB configuration to small changes hasinfewer
δ. While
lossesincreasing
(1.21% vs. the 1.31%number of primary
at 500 Hz) over
turns—and hence
the whole frequency L —could mitigate this, e.g., with a turns ratio of 1:100, it
T range, and hence lower total hybrid transformer losses. The higher efficiency would greatly affectofthe
hybrid transformer
the HB-HB volume.
configuration Given this,
is considered to the MMC-MMC
outweigh configuration
the improved may offered
controllability prove better
by the atMMClower
frequencies for the given
one, and so is recommended here. hybrid transformer parameters.

δ = 10 o δ = 10 o

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 10.10.
vcpv,cpv, pv,p,and
andresulting
resulting iipp waveforms
waveforms for
forthe
the(a)
(a)HB
HBand
and(b)
(b)11-11L
11-11LMMC
MMCconfigurations.
configurations.
Energies 2017, 10, 851 13 of 15

The MMC-MMC requires a lot of reactive power compensation though, due to the large load
angle required to transfer the desired real power. This is achieved though increasing the MVDC bus
voltage; however, it is envisioned that this would be limited to ±15% of the nominal value, limiting
the operational frequency of the MMC-MMC configuration to around 700 Hz. However, this could be
improved by decreasing LT through reducing the number of primary windings, although Ae would
have to increase to compensate for the increased flux.
The core losses for all of the hybrid transformer topologies are very similar and small compared
to the converter losses. If a core volume of 1 m3 at 500 Hz is assumed, then the core losses would be
0.33% compared to 1% converter loss for the HB-HB configuration. Clearly, converter losses dominate
core losses, demonstrating the importance of the converter’s design. While the literature [28] suggests
that the MMC configuration has lower losses, this is based on the HB using Pulse Width Modulation
(PWM). Without PWM, the HB-HB configuration has fewer losses (1.21% vs. 1.31% at 500 Hz) over the
whole frequency range, and hence lower total hybrid transformer losses. The higher efficiency of the
HB-HB configuration is considered to outweigh the improved controllability offered by the MMC one,
and so is recommended here.
The HB-MMC configuration was only modelled here with a 3L MMC, as at higher voltage levels
the harmonic mismatch between the primary and secondary side lead to significant difficulties in
power control, particularly at part load. However, if this could be resolved, more voltage levels
could be used to increase the transformer’s power stability without increasing converter losses, as the
number of levels on the secondary does not influence losses. Additionally, the transformer’s turns
ratio can be halved, since v̂ p = VMVDC while v̂s = 0.5·VHVDC , and hence possibly reduce the volume
and winding losses of the hybrid transformer. Further work will therefore seek ways to mitigate the
harmonic mismatch between the 3L primary and nL secondary waveforms.

6. Conclusions
This paper has evaluated three different topologies including the HB-HB, HB-MMC, and
MMC-MMC for the hybrid HVDC transformer over the MF range. Using simulations run in the
MATLAB/Simulink environment, the converter losses were calculated for each case, and the range
and stability of the real and reactive power control determined. The HB-HB configuration was found
to be the most efficient configuration, but Pout was very sensitive, particularly at low operating
frequencies. The MMC-MMC configuration increased Pout stability, but to improve QT control
above 700 Hz, the number of transformer windings should be reduced. The higher efficiency of
the HB-HB topology is preferred overall, particularly at higher frequencies. However, the MMC-MMC
configuration at the OVL may prove beneficial at lower frequencies if the hybrid transformer volume
is reduced significantly.
The losses in the HB-MMC converter were calculated to be slightly larger than in the HB-HB
configuration; however, the turns ratio was halved. This could reduce the volume of the magnetic
transformer and reduce the winding losses. Also, since the number of IGBTs within the valves of the
secondary converter are reduced, construction of the converter will be simplified. Further work will
focus on improving the THD generated by the primary converter without significantly increasing its
losses to mitigate the large difference in THDs between the primary and secondary converters.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) and Research
Councils UK (RCUK) Energy programme for the Industrial Doctoral Center for Offshore Renewable Energy
(IDCORE) (EP/J500847/1) as well as Innovate UK (formally known as the Technology Strategy Board) for their
funding, and Mark Knos for support.
Author Contributions: Michael Smailes, Chong Ng and Paul McKeever conceived and designed the computer
models; Michael Smailes performed the simulations; Michael Smailes, Chong Ng, Jonathan Shek, Gerasimos
Theotokatos and Mohammad Abusara analyzed the data; Michael Smailes wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2017, 10, 851 14 of 15

References
1. Van Eeckhout, B.; Van Hertem, D.; Reza, M.; Srivastava, K.; Belmans, R. Economic comparison of VSC HVDC
and HVAC as transmission system for a 300 MW offshore wind farm. Eur. Trans. Electr. Power 2010, 20,
661–671. [CrossRef]
2. Arapogianni, A.; Moccia, J.; Wilkes, J. The European Offshore Wind Industry—Key Treds and Statistics 2012;
European Wind Energy Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
3. Northland Power Acquires Majority Equity Stake in North Sea Offshore Wind Farms From RWE Innogy.
Available online: http://www.northlandpower.ca/Investor-Centre/News--Events/Recent_Press_Releases.
aspx?MwID=1873377 (accessed on 2 February 2015).
4. Giller, P. Multi-Contracting for the First Project Financing in the German Offshore Wind Market: Projekt Offshore
Wind Farm Meerwind Sud/Ost [288 MW Offshore Wind Farm]; WindMW GmbH: Bremerhaven, Germany, 2012.
5. Pulzer, M. Innovation for Offshore Substations. Real Power 2014, 35, 18–22.
6. Ng, C.; McKeever, P. Next generation HVDC network for offshore renewable energy industry. In Proceedings
of the 10th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission (ACDC 2012), Birmingham, UK,
4–5 December 2012; pp. 1–7.
7. Smailes, M.; Ng, C.; Shek, J.; Abusara, M.; Theotokatos, G.; McKeever, P. Hybrid, multi-megawatt HVDC
transformer for future offshore wind farms. In Proceedings of the 3rd Renewable Power Generation
Conference RPG 2014, Naples, Italy, 24–25 September 2014; pp. 1–6.
8. Jovcic, D. Bidirectional, High-Power DC Transformer. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2009, 24, 2276–2283.
[CrossRef]
9. Denniston, N.; Massoud, A.M.; Ahmed, S.; Enjeti, P.N. Multiple-Module High-Gain High-Voltage DC-DC
Transformers for Offshore Wind Energy Systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 1877–1886. [CrossRef]
10. Li, H.; Bai, X.; Wu, J. Study on modeling of high frequency power pulse transformer. In Proceedings of the
World Automation Congress 2008 (WAC 2008), Hawaii, HI, USA, 28 September–2 October 2008; pp. 1–5.
11. Ortiz, G.; Biela, J.; Bortis, D.; Kolar, J.W. 1 Megawatt, 20 kHz, isolated, bidirectional 12 kV to 1.2 kV DC-DC
converter for renewable energy applications. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Power Electronics
Conference (IPEC), Sapporo, Japan, 21–24 June 2010; pp. 3212–3219.
12. Zhou, Y.; Macpherson, D.E.; Blewitt, W.; Jovcic, D. Comparison of DC-DC converter topologies for offshore
wind-farm application. In Proceedings of the 6th IET International Conference on Power Electronics,
Machines and Drives PEMD 2012, Bristol, UK, 27–29 March 2012; pp. 1–6.
13. De Doncker, R.W.; Divan, D.M.; Kheraluwala, M.H. A three-phase soft-switched high-power-density DC/DC
converter for high-power applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1991, 27, 63–73. [CrossRef]
14. Meier, S.; Kjellqvist, T.; Norrga, S.; Nee, H.-P. Design considerations for medium-frequency power
transformers in offshore wind farms. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Power Electronics
and Applications, Barcelona, Spain, 8–10 September 2009; pp. 1–12.
15. Ortiz, G.; Biela, J.; Kolar, J.W. Optimized design of medium frequency transformers with high isolation
requirements. In Proceedings of the IECON 2010—36th Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society, Glendale, AZ, USA, 7–10 November 2010; pp. 631–638.
16. Flourentzou, N.; Agelidis, V.G.; Demetriades, G.D. VSC-Based HVDC Power Transmission Systems:
An Overview. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2009, 24, 592–602. [CrossRef]
17. Zhong, Y.; Finney, S.; Holliday, D. An investigation of high efficiency DC-AC converters for LVDC distribution
networks. In Proceedings of the 7th IET International Conference on Power Electronics, Machines and Drives
(PEMD 2014), Manchester, UK, 8–10 April 2014; pp. 1–6.
18. Marquardt, R. Modular Multilevel Converter: An universal concept for HVDC-Networks and extended
DC-Bus-applications. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Power Electronics Conference (IPEC),
Sapporo, Japan, 21–24 June 2010; pp. 502–507.
19. Luth, T.; Merlin, M.M.C.; Green, T.C.; Hassan, F.; Barker, C.D. High-Frequency Operation of a DC/AC/DC
System for HVDC Applications. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2014, 29, 4107–4115. [CrossRef]
20. Smailes, M.; Ng, C.; McKeever, P.; Fox, R.; Knos, M.; Shek, J. A modular, multi-megawatt, hybrid HVDC
transformer for offshore wind power collection and distribution. In Proceedings of the EWEA Offshore
Wind Energy Conference, Paris, France, 17–20 November 2015.
Energies 2017, 10, 851 15 of 15

21. Rohner, S.; Bernet, S.; Hiller, M.; Sommer, R. Modulation, Losses, and Semiconductor Requirements of
Modular Multilevel Converters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2010, 57, 2633–2642. [CrossRef]
22. Mühlethaler, J.; Biela, J.; Kolar, J.W.; Ecklebe, A. Improved core-loss calculation for magnetic components
employed in power electronic systems. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2012, 27, 964–973. [CrossRef]
23. Bertotti, G. General properties of power losses in soft ferromagnetic materials. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1988, 24,
621–630. [CrossRef]
24. Hargreaves, P.A.; Mecrow, B.C.; Hall, R. Calculation of iron loss in electrical generators using finite element
analysis. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Electric Machines & Drives Conference IEMDC,
Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, 15–18 May 2011; pp. 1368–1373.
25. Villar, I.; Viscarret, U.; Etxeberria-Otadui, I.; Rufer, A. Global Loss Evaluation Methods for Nonsinusoidally
Fed Medium-Frequency Power Transformers. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 4132–4140. [CrossRef]
26. Venkatachalam, K.; Sullivan, C.R.; Abdallah, T.; Tacca, H. Accurate prediction of ferrite core loss with
nonsinusoidal waveforms using only Steinmetz parameters. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Workshop on
Computers in Power Electronics, Mayaguez, PR, USA, 3–4 June 2002; pp. 36–41.
27. Smailes, M.; Ng, C.; Fox, R.; Shek, J.; Abusara, M.; Theotokatos, G.; McKeever, P. Evaluation of core
loss calculation methods for highly non-sinusoidal inputs. In Proceedings of the 11th IET International
Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission (ACDC), Birmingham, UK, 10–12 February 2015.
28. Tu, Q.; Xu, Z. Power losses evaluation for modular multilevel converter with junction temperature
feedback. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Detroit, MI, USA,
24–29 July 2011; pp. 1–7.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).