424 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO.

1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

Regions of Active Damping Control for LCL Filters

Stewart Geoffrey Parker, Student Member, IEEE, Brendan P. McGrath, Member, IEEE, and
Donald Grahame Holmes, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—The control of a grid-connected voltage source in-
verter with an inductive–capacitive–inductive (LCL) filter is a
very challenging task, since the LCL network causes a resonance
phenomenon near to the control stability boundary. While many
active damping methods have been proposed to overcome this
issue, the role that pulse width modulation transport delay plays in
the effectiveness of these strategies is still not fully resolved. This
paper presents a theoretical discrete time-analysis framework that
identifies three distinct regions of LCL filter resonance, namely,
a high resonant frequency region where active damping is not
required, a critical resonant frequency where a controller cannot
stabilize the system, and a low resonant frequency region where
active damping is essential. Suitable controllers are then proposed
for the two stable regions, with gain calculations that allow for the
greatest system bandwidth and damping. Simulation and experi-
mental results verify the presented analysis.
Index Terms—Active damping, current control, discrete time,
grid-connected, LCL filter, resonance damping.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I NDUCTIVE–CAPACITIVE–INDUCTIVE (LCL) line fil-
ters are increasingly being used in grid-connected converter
applications, since they can provide significantly improved
attenuation of the pulse width modulation (PWM) switching
harmonics with a reduced overall size and weight when com-
pared with a more conventional inductive (L) filter [1], [2].
However, LCL filters introduce substantial complexity from
a control perspective because of the resonance between the
filter elements, which creates a pair of system poles located
on the closed-loop stability boundary [2], [3]. To avoid passive
(resistive) damping solutions, with their attendant increased
losses, active damping strategies are often proposed [2]–[5].
These strategies use a multiloop controller architecture that
moves the resonant poles away from the stability boundary to
maximize the loop gain and damp the system [2], [3], [5].
Despite the extensive literature that has been published on the
subject [1]–[7], the design of an active damping strategy for an
LCL filter remains a challenging task, particularly since there is
Manuscript received August 3, 2012; revised December 5, 2012; accepted
March 16, 2013. Date of publication June 7, 2013; date of current version
January 16, 2014. Paper 2012-IPCC-463.R1, presented at the 2012
IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, Raleigh, NC, USA,
September 15–20, and approved for publication in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS
ON I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS by the Industrial Power Converter Committee
of the IEEE Industry Applications Society.
The authors are with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
RMIT University, Melbourne, Vic. 3001, Australia (e-mail: stewart.parker@
student.rmit.edu.au; brendan_mcgrath@ieee.org; grahame.holmes@rmit.
edu.au).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2013.2266892
no clear consensus regarding the role and significance of digital
sampling and transport delay [8], [9]. For example, [1] presents
a stable LCL filter system without active or passive damping,
but then proposes that passive damping is required when addi-
tional delay is taken into account. Reference [2] shows that an
LCL filter with a high-frequency resonance can be stabilized
with grid current feedback alone, whereas [6] presents substan-
tially differing results when exploring the control of LCL filter
systems with high and low resonant frequencies. Reference [3]
comes to the conclusion that only grid current feedback is re-
quired for stable control at high resonant frequencies, whereas,
in contrast, only converter-side current feedback is required at
low filter resonant frequencies. Reference [3] also suggests that
active damping using positive feedback of the capacitor current
is a beneficial approach for converter-side current feedback at a
high filter resonant frequency. Reference [5] demonstrates how
converter-side current is the superposition of the grid-side and
capacitor filter currents (the latter is commonly used for active
damping), which explains how feedback of the converter-side
current provides an implicit damping effect. However, none of
the literature to date precisely identifies how and when active
damping is required in an LCL filter as the resonant frequency
varies, particularly when digital sampling and transport delay
caused by the closed-loop controller and modulation process
are taken into account.
This paper addresses this issue by theoretically identifying
two distinct regions of significance for the LCL filter resonant
frequency when the grid current is the target feedback variable.
In the low resonant frequency region, active damping is iden-
tified in this paper as essential for control loop stability. In the
high resonant frequency region, active damping is identified as
not being required, and grid current feedback alone is found to
be sufficient to design a stable system. At the critical resonance
frequency where these regions cross over, it is essentially not
possible to design a current regulator with effective damping.
With these regions identified, design processes are then pre-
sented that determine the maximum possible gains for each
type of feedback controller to achieve the desired performance
characteristics. The theoretical conclusions presented in this
paper are supported and validated by matching simulation and
experimental results.
II. D ISCRETE T IME DYNAMIC M ODEL OF THE ACTIVE
DAMPING C URRENT R EGULATOR
Fig. 1 shows the general structure of a voltage source inverter
(VSI) feeding into a grid through an LCL network. The primary
control objective for this system is to regulate the grid current
i2 to control the injected power into the grid. Typically, it is

0093-9994 © 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
PARKER et al.: REGIONS OF ACTIVE DAMPING CONTROL FOR LCL FILTERS 425


where ωres = (L1 + L2 )/(L1 L2 Cf ) and γLC =

1/(L2 Cf ).
Note that winding resistance and core loss of the inductors
have been neglected in (1) and (2) to represent a worst case
undamped scenario [10].
The third transfer function relating i2 to ic can be developed
by taking the ratio of (1) and (2), i.e.,
i2 (s) Gi (s) γ2
= 2 = LC . (3)
ic (s) Gic (s) s2
Applying a zero-order-hold (ZOH) transform [11] to (1) and
(2) with a sampling period of T = 1/(fsamp ) gives z-domain
LCL filter transfer functions for i2 and ic of

Fig. 1. Grid-connected VSI with an LCL filter and active damping current i2 (z) T
Gi2 (z) = =
regulator. Vo (z) (L1 + L2 )(z − 1)
sin(ωres T ) z−1
− × (4)
ωres (L1 + L2 ) z 2 − 2z cos(ωres T ) + 1
i (z) sin(ωres T ) z−1
Gic (z) = c = × 2 .
Vo (z) ωres L1 z − 2z cos(ωres T ) + 1
(5)

To discretize (3), it should be recognized that the grid current

Fig. 2. Single-phase equivalent current regulator architectures. (a) Single-
loop feedback current regulator. (b) Dual-loop regulator with capacitor current
active damping.
claimed that a single-loop feedback regulator is not adequate for
this role since the LCL resonance causes controller instability
[2], [3].
Fig. 2(a) shows such a single-loop controller (modeled in the
z-domain to account for digital sampling). Fig. 2(b) shows a
typical dual-loop control system that addresses the resonance
stability problem by including the active damping feedback of
the capacitor current ic (z) via a damping gain K [2]–[5]. For
both of these controllers, i∗2 (z) is the commanded grid current,
i2 (z) is the measured grid current, Gc (z) is the controller
transfer function, and the inverter is modeled as a linear VDC
gain, with a sample delay z −1 to account for PWM transport
delay [7], [8].1
Analysis of the control systems of Fig. 2 requires the discrete
time-transfer functions for the LCL filter of Gi2 (z), Gic (z), and
i2 (z)/ic (z). The first two of these transfer functions are well
defined within the literature [3], [5] in the s-domain as
2 These transfer functions can now be combined to create
i2 (s) 1 γLC
Gi2 (s) = = 2 2 )
(1)
Vo (s) sL1 (s + ωres
ic (s) 1 s2
Gic (s) = = (2)
Vo (s) sL1 (s2 + ωres
2 )
1 The grid back electromotive force E is omitted from all block diagrams
and analyses in this paper, since it only influences the fundamental grid current
component and has no effect on stability.
in Fig. 2(b) results from the cascaded connection of Gic (z)
and i2 (z)/ic (z). Since the grid and capacitor currents are, in
practice, sampled at the same time instants, the delay attributed
to this process is accounted for by the ZOH transformation used
to generate (5). Hence, (3) is discretized using an impulse-
invariant transformation [11], so that no additional delay is
introduced to the system model, giving
i2 (z) γ2 T 2z
= LC 2 . (6)
ic (z) (z − 1)
It is common to use a proportional plus resonance (PR)
controller (synchronous dq frame proportional plus integral
equivalent) [9] for such current regulators, to eliminate steady-
state tracking errors at the fundamental frequency ωo . The
transfer function for this controller is defined by (7), with a
proportional gain Kp and resonant time constant Tr , i.e.,
 
Gc (s) = Kp 1 +
1 s
. (7)
Tr (s2 + ω02 )
The best discretization strategy for this controller is a Tustin
transform with prewarping [11], which gives an equivalent
discrete time controller transfer function of
 
1 sin(ω0 T ) z2 − 1
Gc (z) = Kp 1 + .
Tr 2ω0 (z 2 − 2z cos(ω0 T ) + 1)
(8)
open-loop forward-path expressions for the regulators of Fig. 2
so that control system analysis techniques, such as frequency
response (Bode) and root locus, can be applied.
For the single-loop regulator [see Fig. 2(a)], the forward-path
transfer function is readily established as
i2 (z)
= z −1 VDC Gc (z)Gi2 (z) (9)
ie2 (z)
426 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

TABLE I
LCL F ILTER S YSTEM PARAMETERS

where ie2 (z) = i∗2 (z) − i2 (z) is the regulated current error. For
the active damping regulator [see Fig. 2(b)], the analysis pro-
ceeds by first closing the inner capacitor current feedback active
damping loop, i.e.,
Fig. 3. Bode plot of the forward-path transfer function for the single- and
ic (z) VDC Gic (z) dual-loop current regulators: Cf = 15 μF.
= . (10)
mo (z) z + KVDC Gic (z)
This result can now be combined with transfer functions (6) and
(8) to obtain the forward-path transfer function of the overall
system shown in Fig. 2(b) as
i2 (z) ic (z) i2 (z)
= Gc (z) × ×
ie2 (z) mo (z) ic (z)
VDC Gic (z) [i2 (z)/ic (z)]
= Gc (z) × . (11)
z + KVDC Gic (z)

III. I DENTIFICATION OF THE ACTIVE DAMPING R EGIONS

To assess the relationship between the current regulator
stability and the LCL filter resonant frequency, the frequency
responses of the forward-path transfer functions for the single-
and dual-loop current regulators have been calculated in
MATLAB using (9) and (11), for a system with the parameters
given in Table I. Three different filter capacitor values are con-
sidered to range the filter resonant frequency between ∼10%
and ∼30% of the sampling frequency.
The Bode plot of Fig. 3 shows frequency responses of the
single- and dual-loop current regulators when the resonant
frequency is substantially lower than the sampling frequency.
Without active damping (i.e., single loop), the high-frequency
LCL filter resonance at 6.6 krad/s causes a sharp phase transi-
tion through −180◦ with a very high resonant magnitude. This
is an unconditionally unstable situation for all controller gains.
Incorporating active damping using the dual-loop regulator
both softens this phase transition and reduces the resonant peak
magnitude as shown, so that the system can be stabilized with
appropriate controller gains.
In contrast, Fig. 4 shows the Bode plot of a single-loop
current regulator when the LCL resonance is much closer
to the sampling frequency. In this case, the high-frequency
phase rolloff created by digital sampling causes the forward-
path phase to transit below −180◦ well before the LCL filter
resonance frequency. Now, the single-loop regulator can be
stabilized by selecting gains such that the magnitude response
crosses 0 dB prior to this frequency, as shown in Fig. 4. Note
that the sharp phase transition and large magnitude excur-
Fig. 4. Bode plot of the forward-path transfer function for the single-loop
current regulator: Cf = 1.5 μF.
sion above unity gain because of the LCL filter resonance at
21.1 krad/s have no influence on system stability, since the
phase is already well below −180◦ at this frequency (i.e., no
Nyquist encirclement of −1).
This analysis identifies the existence of a critical LCL filter
resonant frequency, above which a single-loop regulator is
sufficient to achieve a stable response, but below which active
damping is required to ensure stability. This frequency can be
determined by calculating the point at which the phase of the
forward-path function (9) reaches −180◦ , i.e.,
i2
∠ (z = ejωT ) = ∠e−jωT VDC Gc (ejωT )Gi2 (ejωT ) = −π.
ie2
(12)
Figs. 3 and 4 show that the controller and the LCL filter
resonances both have negligible effect on the system phase
response between these two resonant frequencies. The con-
troller resonant frequency is over a decade below the unity
gain crossover frequency and, hence, makes little phase con-
tribution at this frequency. Thus, ∠Gc (ejωT ) ≈ 0. The LCL
filter resonance makes no phase contribution until the resonant
PARKER et al.: REGIONS OF ACTIVE DAMPING CONTROL FOR LCL FILTERS
Fig. 5. Root loci of grid current i2 feedback only. (a) High resonant frequency (Cf = 1.5 μF). (b) Critical resonant frequency (Cf = 6 μF). (c) Low resonant
frequency (Cf = 15 μF).
Fig. 6. Root loci of capacitor current ic feedback only. Low resonant fre-
quency (Cf = 15 μF).
frequency is actually reached and thus ∠Gi2 (ejωT ) reduces
to ∠(1/ejωT − 1). Substituting these simplifications into (12)
gives, with some algebra, i.e.,
i2 π ωT π
∠ e (z = ejωT ) = −ωT − − = −π ⇒ ωcrit = . • For the dual-loop controller developed from (11), i.e.,
i2 2 2 3T
(13)
From this analysis, it can be concluded that if the LCL
resonant frequency is below ωcrit , active damping is required,
whereas if it is above ωcrit , a single control loop is sufficient
to achieve a stable system. However, stability is not the only
consideration for an LCL filter current regulator design—the
issue of insufficient damping must be also explored. In addition,
there is also the uncertain region of operation when the LCL
filter resonance is at or near to ωcrit . Figs. 5–7 now present root
loci results to explore these issues. Note that, for this analysis,
the PR controller function Gc (z) can be reduced to Kp since
the resonance gain has negligible effect above ωo .
The root loci of the single- and dual-loop systems can be
conveniently determined by plotting the denominator poles
of their closed-loop transfer functions as the controller gains
are varied. The relevant expressions can be developed from
the forward-path G(z) transfer functions using the following
conventional 1 + G(z) = 0 formulation.
• For the single-loop controller developed from (9), i.e.,
z + VDC Kp Gi2 (z) = 0.
427
Fig. 7. Root loci of variation in active damping gain K for a given Kp
using dual-loop controller. (a) Critical resonant frequency. (b) Low resonant
frequency. (Cf = 6 μF, Kp = 0.083). (Cf = 15 μF Kp = 0.060).
• For the inner loop of the dual-loop controller from
(10), i.e.,
z + KVDC Gic (z) = 0. (15)
z + KVDC Gic (z) + Kp VDC Gic (z) [i2 (z)/ic (z)] = 0. (16)
Fig. 5 shows the closed-loop pole movement for the single-
loop grid current feedback system [see Fig. 2(a)]. For Fig. 5(a),
where the LCL resonant frequency is above ωcrit , the poles
initially track well inside the unit circle. Hence, the system
will be stable until too much proportional gain Kp is applied.
In contrast, when the LCL resonance is at or below ωcrit [see
Fig. 5(b) and (c)], the resonant pole pairs always track away
from the unit circle. Hence, the system will always be unstable
irrespective of the proportional gain that is applied, without
active damping.
Fig. 6 shows the pole movement for the inner capacitor
current feedback loop with the LCL resonance below ωcrit ,
where it can be seen how the resonant poles track inward to
make a damping contribution, before tracking outside the unit
circle as the damping gain K is increased further. Clearly, there
is a maximum useful damping gain, beyond which the overall
system stability will be compromised.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of capacitor current active damping
(14) with a dual-loop controller [see Fig. 2(b)] for fixed given values
428 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

of Kp . Note from these plots how the poles always originate The Kp calculation then progresses by specifying a desired
outside the unit circle because of the outer loop gain, and hence, phase margin φm and calculating the crossover frequency ωc ,
the system will be initially unstable without active damping. which achieves this margin, i.e.,
When the LCL resonance is below ωcrit [see Fig. 7(b)], increas-
i2   VDC Kp T 1
ing the damping gain K forces the poles to track back inside the ∠ z = ejωc T = ∠
ie2 (L1 + L2 ) ejωc T (ejωc T − 1)
unit circle, and the overall system becomes stable. However,
too much damping gain will make the poles track back outside π ωc T
=− − − ωc T
the unit circle, and stability will be lost. In addition, when the 2 2
LCL resonant frequency is equal to ωcrit , active damping can π 3
only make the resonant poles touch the unit circle (but never = − − ωc T. (18)
2 2
enter), and hence, the system will always be unstable for this
LCL resonant frequency irrespective of the damping gain. Hence,
Reference [2] has identified very similar root loci behavior i2   π 3
in the high and low resonant frequency regions. However, this φm = π + ∠ e z = ejωc T = − ωc T (19)
i2 2 2
paper considered an LCL filter with internal series resistance
(i.e., a partially damped system as opposed to the worst case
π
− φm
⇒ ωc = 2
3T
. (20)
scenario that has been treated in this paper) and explored a 2
synchronous frame controller architecture with active damping
implemented using an inline notch filter. Despite these differ- The proportional gain is then set to achieve unity gain at the
ences, the authors come to very similar conclusions regarding desired crossover frequency using
 
the regions where active damping provides a useful benefit and  (L + L ) ejωc T − 1 
 1 2 
identify that controller resonance (or integral action in the DQ Kp =  . (21)
 VDC T 
frame) is not significant in terms of the stability analysis.
It is also useful to note that all the root loci plots track through
the unit circle at the same point √ as they go unstable, which With the approximation of |ejωc T − 1| ≈ ωc T , this gives
can be identified as z = 0.5 ± j 3/2 or at a frequency of ωc (L1 + L2 )
ω = π/(3T ) (the critical resonant frequency). This recognition Kp ≈ . (22)
VDC
can be confirmed using simple geometry and can then be used
to develop fundamental gain limitations for controller design. Finally, the resonant time constant Tr can be calculated by
ensuring that its phase contribution is small at the crossover
frequency [9], i.e.,
IV. C ONTROLLER AND G AIN D ETERMINATION
10
Tr = . (23)
A. LCL Resonance Above Critical Resonant Frequency ωc
When the LCL resonant frequency is above the critical fre- For the high resonant frequency system (fres = 3.355 kHz)
quency ωcrit , active damping using capacitor current feedback detailed in Table I, with a desired phase margin of φm = 45o ,
is not required since single-loop control provides good resonant these gain calculations give resultant values of Kp = 0.129 A−1
pole damping. Thus, the well known PR controller as defined and Tr = 0.0019 s. Fig. 4 shows the Bode plot frequency
by (7) can be used to control the grid current without additional response for this system, from which the 45o phase margin can
damping. This control structure is shown in Fig. 2(a). be readily identified.
It is clear from Fig. 5(a) that the gain limitation for this region
of operation is the position within the unit circle of the low-
frequency poles (series inductance and delay), not the resonant B. LCL Resonance Below Critical Resonant Frequency
effects of the LCL filter. This can be immediately recognized It is clear from the root locus in Fig. 5(c) that, when the
as the same mechanism that limits the performance of simple L LCL resonance frequency is below the critical frequency ωres <
filter systems [8], [9]. Hence, when the LCL resonant frequency π/(3T ), active damping is mandatory to achieve a stable sys-
is above the critical frequency, i.e., ωres > ωcrit , the maximum tem with minimal oscillation. Capacitor current feedback is a
gains can be calculated using the same method as for standard commonly used form of such active damping. One variation,
L filters, where L = L1 + L2 . involving feedback of capacitor current through a damping gain
Recognizing that the magnitude and phase contribution of the of magnitude K, is shown in Fig. 2(b), and several methods for
LCL resonance is going to be small at the crossover frequency, determining this gain have been proposed in recent literature
the plant response will always be dominated by the series [4], [5], [12]. This paper now proposes an improved gain
inductance [5]. Hence, only the low-frequency component of determination procedure, which ensures stability and the most
the plant model (4) is required, and the single control loop damped possible response, particularly taking system delay into
forward-path transfer function reduces to account.
Irrespective of the damping effect, the low-frequency con-
i2 (z) T troller characteristics will still be dominated by the series
= z −1 VDC Kp . (17)
ie2 (z) (z − 1)(L1 + L2 ) filter inductance [5]. Hence, the proportional gain Kp and
PARKER et al.: REGIONS OF ACTIVE DAMPING CONTROL FOR LCL FILTERS 429

the resonant time constant Tr can be calculated using (22)

and (23), respectively, provided that a crossover frequency
can be determined that achieves an appropriate phase margin.
Referring to the Bode phase plot in Fig. 3, it can be seen that
even with active damping, the transfer function phase rapidly
falls below −180◦ near the LCL resonant frequency. Hence, the
0 dB gain crossover frequency must be adequately set below
this frequency region. Referring again to Fig. 3, setting the
crossover frequency to ωc ≈ 0.3ωres comfortably avoids the
rapid phase transition region and, hence, achieves an adequate
phase margin. The proportional gain was calculated for the
low resonant frequency system in Table I (fres = 1.061 kHz)
using this strategy, and the resultant value for a target crossover
frequency of ωc = 0. 36ωres was Kp = 0.060 A−1 .
Determination of the best possible damping gain K requires
more consideration, since the target is to place the root loci Fig. 8. Root locus gain selection for damping gain K. The solid line region
poles as far as possible inside the unit circle to achieve the represents the range Kmin ≤ K ≤ Kmax .
maximum damping. The position of these poles is given by
the solution of the denominator of the characteristic closed-loop
transfer function (16), as outlined earlier. Given the complexity
of this equation, it has been numerically solved using MATLAB
for the example system listed in Table I, as the damping gain K
is varied.
First, a bounded range for K can be determined by rec-
ognizing some limitations. The root locus of Fig. 7(b) shows
that there will be both a minimum and maximum value of K
that ensures that the poles remain inside the unit circle. The
maximum value of K can be found using the denominator of
the closed-loop transfer function (16), adapted to a form where
its magnitude is equal to unity and substituting Gic (z) from (5)
and i2 (z)/ic (z) from (6), i.e.,
 
 VDC sin(ωres T ) K(z0 −1)2 +Kp γLC2
T 2 z0 
 × =1
 ωres L1 z0 (z0 −1) (z0 −2z0 cos(ωres T )+1) 
2
Fig. 9. Simulation of low resonant frequency system when active damping is
(24) disabled at 25 ms.
where z0 is a specific pole location on the root locus.
As identified earlier, as the damping gain increases, the root While this ratio was developed using a continuous time model,
loci √ unit circle at z = 0.5 ±
√ path in Fig. 7(b) tracks through the it is still essentially valid for the discrete time model with delay.
j 3/2. Hence, setting z0 = 0.5 + j 3/2 into (24) eliminates Thus, the minimum allowable value of K to maintain stability
the roots z0 (z0 − 1) since their magnitude becomes one and is given by
gives
Kp L1
  Kmin = . (28)
 VDC sin(ωres T ) K(z0 − 1)2 + Kp γLC 2
T 2 z0  L1 + L2
 × = 1. (25)
 ωres L1 (z02 − 2z0 cos(ωres T ) + 1) 
Within these limiting values for damping gain, a root locus
pole placement strategy was used to determine the value of K
Kmax can then be found by solving (25) (with some mathe- that achieves the most damping. Fig. 8 shows this result, where
matical manipulation) to get the loci branches are drawn as dashed lines for a full range of
K, and as a solid line for the range of Kmin ≤ K ≤ Kmax . This
ωres L1
Kmax = |1 − 2 cos(ωres T )| + Kp γLC
2
T 2. allowable range was calculated to be from Kmin = 0.044 A−1
VDC sin(ωres T ) to Kmax = 0.124 A−1 , which illustrates the relatively limited
(26)
range of damping gain that is allowable for effective stability
Kmin can be found using the limiting ratio of proportional control. The best possible value for the damping gain was then
gain Kp to damping gain K as found using Routh’s stability selected to place the two resonant poles as far as possible
criterion in [13], i.e., inside the unit circle. For the system in Table I, this occurs
when K = 0.083 A−1 . The Bode plot frequency response for
Kp L1 + L 2 the system with gains specified this way is shown in Fig. 3,
≤ . (27)
K L1 presented earlier in this paper.
430 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014

Fig. 10. Simulation results for each test case. (a) Low resonant frequency system: with active damping. (b) High resonant frequency: no active damping.

Fig. 11. Experimental results for each test case. (a) Low resonant frequency system: with active damping. (b) High resonant frequency: no active damping.

tance of the isolation transformer. The system was operated as a

V. S IMULATION AND E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
Matching simulation and experimental systems have been
constructed as part of this paper to verify both the controller
performance and gain selection processes. The system parame-
ters are given in Table I with filter capacitances of Cf = 15 μF
and Cf = 1.5 uF used to test both the low and high LCL
resonant frequency systems, respectively.
The simulation studies for LCL filter systems were done
under ideal conditions without inductor and grid impedance
resistances (In practice, very small resistances are used for
numerical stability reasons). Hence, simulation can be consid-
ered to represent a worst case scenario and, thus, will be more
difficult to control as a well-damped system, as compared with
an experimental setup. Simulations were performed with PSIM
using a fully switched three-phase inverter model, feeding into
a stiff electrical grid.
The experimental system consisted of a 5 kVA three-phase
prototype active rectifier connected to the grid through an LCL
filter and an isolation transformer. The inductance L2 was the
series combination of a discrete inductor and the leakage induc-
static compensator with dc bus voltage regulation such that no
real power source or load was required. A Texas Instruments
TMS320F2810 fixed point DSP and associated hardware was
used for the analog measurements, control algorithms, PWM
waveform generation, protection, and background routines.
Fig. 9 demonstrates the need for, and the benefits of, active
damping, showing a simulated system operating in steady state
before active damping is disabled. When active damping is
enabled, the system stably operates without resonance. Active
damping is then disabled and a large resonant current and
instability ensues. It is clear that active damping is necessary
for this low resonant frequency system to maintain stability and
current quality.
Figs. 10 and 11 show matching simulation and experimental
transient time-domain system responses. For each case, a step
change in commanded current from 4 to 8 A (capacitive) is used
to demonstrate dynamic performance and (potentially) excite
any resonance that may occur.
For the high resonant frequency system [see Figs. 10(b) and
11(b)], no oscillation can be observed during the transient event
PARKER et al.: REGIONS OF ACTIVE DAMPING CONTROL FOR LCL FILTERS
despite the lack of any form of active damping feedback. Both
the simulation and experimental results very closely match,
which confirms the theoretical modeling above the critical
frequency and the identification that a single-loop feedback
controller is sufficient to control a high resonant frequency LCL
filter. The dynamic performance is also very good, with a rise
time on the order of ∼1 ms as a consequence of the controller
gains being set as high as possible. Note that the experimental
dynamic performance is even faster than the simulation due to
an identified rolloff in the experimental high-frequency induc-
tance values because they used a steel core (not modeled in
simulation).
It is interesting to note, however, that the additional PWM
ripple current filtering benefit of an LCL filter is limited for the
high resonant frequency case. In fact, the system very similarly
behaves to a single L filter as predicted by the root locus [see
Fig. 5(a)]. Hence, little benefit is obtained in practice by using
a LCL filter in this resonant frequency region.
Figs. 10(a) and 11(a) show the simulation and experimental
response for a low LCL resonant frequency system, with the
proportional and damping gains set as previously discussed.
The system is clearly still quite stable, but has less damping
than the high resonant frequency system, as illustrated by the
slight oscillatory settling response just after the transient step.
However, the oscillation has small amplitude and damps out
in 3–4 cycles. This is in agreement with the root locus design
shown in Fig. 8, where the resonant poles are located only just
inside the unit circle and, thus, describe a system that is some-
what underdamped. Note also that the dynamic performance is
also slightly reduced because of the lower system bandwidth
that is achieved with the slightly reduced proportional gain.
Finally, the experimental results show an increased baseband
harmonic distortion compared with the simulation system. This
is because of low-order harmonic voltages that are present
on the experimental grid, which are not fully compensated
by the fundamental PR resonant regulator. For a commercial
system, additional harmonic compensators [14] or feedforward
compensation [15] may be required to resolve this issue.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper has presented a complete theoretical discrete
time-analysis framework for a grid-connected LCL filter sys-
tem, including sampling and transport delay. Three regions
of controller operation have been identified, namely, a low
resonant frequency region where active damping is mandatory,
a high resonant frequency region where active damping is not
required, and a critical resonant frequency where the system
will be unstable irrespective of the controller that is used. A
detailed analysis is then presented for controller and gain se-
lection to ensure that the highest possible controller bandwidth
and LCL damping are obtained for each operating region.
Simulation and experimental results prove the effectiveness
of the chosen controller architectures and the gains selected
provide exemplary performance. Furthermore, the filtering and
dynamic performance of a high resonant frequency filter was
found to be similar to that of a single inductor type filter, which
suggests that there may be no particular benefit in using an LCL
431
compared with an L filter if its resonant frequency is above the
critical value.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, M. Liserre, and A. Dell’Aquila, “A sta-
ble three-phase LCL-filter based active rectifier without damping,” in
Conf. Rec. IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2003,
pp. 1552–1557.
[2] J. Dannehl, C. Wessels, and F. W. Fuchs, “Limitations of voltage-oriented
PI current control of grid-connected PWM rectifiers with LCL filters,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 380–388, Feb. 2009.
[3] J. Dannehl, F. W. Fuchs, S. Hansen, and P. B. Thogersen, “Investigation of
active damping approaches for PI-based current control of grid-connected
pulse width modulation converters with LCL filters,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1509–1517, Jul./Aug. 2010.
[4] Y. Lei, Z. Zhao, H. He, S. Liu, and L. Yin, “An improved virtual resistance
damping method for grid-connected inverters with LCL filters,” in Proc.
IEEE ECCE, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2011, pp. 3846–3822.
[5] Y. Tang, P. C. Loh, P. Wang, F. H. Choo, and F. Gao, “Exploring inher-
ent damping characteristics of LCL-filters for three-phase grid-connected
voltage source inverters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 3,
pp. 1433–1443, Mar. 2012.
[6] M. Liserre, A. Dell’Aquila, and F. Blaabjerg, “Stability improvements of
an LCL-filter based three-phase active rectifier,” in Proc. IEEE PESC,
Cairns, Australia, 2002, pp. 1195–1201.
[7] N. Hoffman, F. W. Fuchs, and J. Dannehl, “Models and effects of different
updating and sampling concepts to the control of grid-connected PWM
converters—A study based on discrete time domain analysis,” in Proc.
EPE Conf., Birmingham, U.K., 2011, pp. 1–10.
[8] S. Buso and P. Mattavelli, Digital Control in Power Electronics. San
Rafael, CA, USA: Morgan and Claypool, 2006.
[9] D. G. Holmes, T. A. Lipo, B. P. McGrath, and W. Y. Kong, “Optimized
design of stationary frame three phase AC current regulators,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2417–2426, Nov. 2009.
[10] W.-T. Franke, J. Dannehl, F. W. Fuchs, and M. Liserre, “Characterization
of differential-mode filter for grid-side converters,” in Proc. IEEE IECON,
Porto, Portugal, 2009, pp. 4080–4085.
[11] G. C. Goodwin, S. F. Graebe, and M. E. Salgado, Control System Design.
Valparaiso, Chile: Universidad Tecnica Frederico Santa Maria, 2000.
[12] G. Shen, Z. Xuancai, Z. Jun, and X. Dehong, “A new feedback method
for PR current control of LCL-filter-based grid-connected inverter,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 2033–2041, Jun. 2010.
[13] C. Liu, X. Zhang, L. H. Tan, and F. Liu, “A novel control strategy of
LCL-VSC based on notch concept,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. PEDG Syst.,
Hefei, China, 2010, pp. 343–346.
[14] M. Liserre, R. Teodorescu, and F. Blaabjerg, “Stability of photovoltaic and
wind turbine grid-connected inverters for a large set of grid impedance
values,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 263–272,
Jan. 2006.
[15] W. Li, D. Pan, X. Ruan, and X. Wang, “A full-feedforward scheme of grid
voltages for a three-phase grid-connected inverter with an LCL filter,” in
Proc. IEEE ECCE, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2011, pp. 96–103.
Stewart Geoffrey Parker (S’10) received the B.E.
degree in electrical and computer systems engineer-
ing from Monash University, Clayton, Australia, in
2010. He is currently working toward the Ph.D.
degree in the Power and Energy Group, RMIT Uni-
versity, Melbourne, Australia.
His current research interests include sinusoidal
current regulation, both fundamental and harmonic,
the use and implications of higher order PWM in-
verter filter structures in grid-connected applications,
and the usage of power electronics in electricity grid
systems and high-performance motor drives.
Mr. Parker’s undergraduate thesis on current regulation in induction motor
vector drives was awarded the Aurecon Prize for Best Power Themed Project
in 2009. He is also an Active Team Member of RMIT University’s Formula
SAE Electric Racing Car team.
432 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
Brendan P. McGrath (M’99) received the B.E.
degree in electrical and computer systems engineer-
ing, the B.Sc. degree in applied mathematics and
physics, and the Ph.D. degree from Monash Uni-
versity, Melbourne, Australia, in 1997 and 2003,
respetively.
He is with the School of Electrical and Com-
puter Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne,
Australia. From 2007 to 2010, he was with Monash
University. From 2005 to 2006, he was with the Uni-
versity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. Prior to
this, he was a Postdoctoral Researcher with the Laboratoire d’Electrotechnique
et d’Electronique Industrielle (LEEI), Toulouse, France. His research interests
include the modulation and control of power electronic converters, with a
particular emphasis on multilevel conversion systems. He has authored over
60 journal and conference articles.
Dr. McGrath is a member of the IEEE Power Electronics, IEEE Industry
Applications, and IEEE Industrial Electronics Societies. He has served as an
Associate Editor of the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS
and the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUSTRIAL I NFORMATICS. In 2004, he
was awarded the Douglas Lampard Research Medal from Monash University
for his Ph.D. thesis.
Donald Grahame Holmes (M’88–SM’03–F’13) re-
ceived the B.S. and the M.S. degrees in power sys-
tems engineering from the University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia, in 1974 and 1979, re-
spectively, and the Ph.D. degree in pulse width
modulation (PWM) theory for power electronic con-
verters from Monash University, Clayton, Australia,
in 1998.
In 1984, he joined Monash University, where
he established and directed the Power Electronics
Group for over 25 years. In 2010, he moved to RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia, to take up a Professorial Chair in Smart
Energy. He has a strong commitment and interest in the control and operation of
electrical power converters. His research interests include fundamental modu-
lation theory and its application to the operation of energy conversion systems,
current regulators for drive systems and PWM rectifiers, active filter systems
for the quality of supply improvement, resonant converters, current-source
inverters for drive systems, and multilevel converters. He has made a significant
contribution to the understanding of PWM theory through his publications
and has developed close ties with the international research community in the
area. He has published over 200 papers at international conference proceedings
and in professional journals and regularly reviews papers for all major IEEE
T RANSACTIONS in his area. He has also coauthored a major reference textbook
on PWM theory with Prof. Thomas Lipo of the University of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI, USA.
Prof. Holmes is an active member of the Industrial Power Converter and
Industrial Drives Committees of the IEEE Industry Applications Society and
the IEEE Power Electronics Society AdCom.