This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

Date of publication xxxx 00, 0000, date of current version xxxx 00, 0000.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.Doi Number

A Bidirectional LLCL Resonant DC-DC

Converter With Reduced Resonant Tank
Currents and Reduced Voltage Stress of the
Resonant Capacitor
Xiaochen Ma1, Ping Wang1, Member, IEEE, Huakun Bi1, Student Member, IEEE, and
Zhishuang Wang1
1
School of Electrical and Information Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072 China

Corresponding author: Ping Wang (e-mail: pingw@tju.edu.cn).

This work was supported in part by Independent Innovation and Entrepreneurship Project of Qingdao Ocean Technology Institute of Tianjin University
(Grant: 20190201-2).

ABSTRACT In this paper, a bidirectional inductor-inductor-capacitor-inductor (LLCL) resonant dc-dc

converter is presented. Compared with the conventional LLC, a parallel-connected inductors structure is
employed into the resonant tank. By virtue of this unique resonant tank, LLCL exhibits the following
desirable features: 1) good voltage gain regulation capability in bidirectional power flow applications; 2)
zero-voltage-switching turn-on of the power switches in a wide load range; 3) compared with the other
bidirectional LLC-type resonant converters, lower resonant tank currents and lower resonant capacitor
voltage stress are achieved under the same working conditions. The topology derivation and operating
principles of LLCL are shown, and the vital characteristics of LLCL are especially discussed. Moreover,
based on battery applications in energy storage systems, in order to make the voltage gain range of LLCL
meet the requirements while minimizing the resonant tank currents, a parameter design method is
conducted. Finally, a 500-W prototype is established to verify the operating principles and design effects of
the proposed converter.

INDEX TERMS Bidirectional power transmission, energy storage system, isolated dc-dc converter, LLC-
type resonant converter.

I. INTRODUCTION classified into non-isolated BDCs and isolated BDCs. Since

For promotion of the energy revolution, development of the
energy storage systems (ESSs) has become one of the
mainstream solutions [1]-[3]. In these systems, bidirectional
dc-dc converters (BDCs) usually play an important role.
Faced with diverse voltage levels and variation ranges,
BDCs can ensure the reliable connection between the dc
bus and the energy storage devices such as batteries. In
addition, BDCs can also transmit bidirectional power
between the dc bus and the batteries [4]. Energy utilization
rate is therefore improved by the implementation of peak-
clipping and valley-filling. Thus, the research on BDCs will
become one of the most promising directions for
developing ESSs [5]-[7].
Depending on whether a high-frequency transformer
(HFT) is utilized for galvanic isolation, BDCs can be
the voltage mismatch between the dc bus and the batteries
in ESSs is great, HFT is often required for system safety
and voltage-matching [8]. Thus, only isolated BDCs
(IBDCs) are discussed in this paper. In a variety of IBDCs,
the dual active bridge (DAB) converter is a basic type.
DAB can realize bidirectional power flow and voltage gain
regulations under the phase shift control [9], [10]. However,
this control strategy will lead to a high reactive power, a
limited zero-voltage-switching (ZVS) range and great turn-
off losses, which will reduce the conversion efficiency. As
a result, various improvements have been proposed. To
minimize the reactive power, the global optimal phase shift
ratios under four scenarios (forward/backward, buck/boost)
are proposed in [11]. To broaden the ZVS range, the
auxiliary LC networks and the auxiliary coupling inductor

VOLUME XX, 2017 1

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access
are employed into DAB in [12] and [13], respectively.
However, although the ZVS range has been broadened, the
complexity of the control strategies and topology structures
has increased significantly. Meanwhile, all the above
solutions cannot effectively reduce the turn-off losses. Con-
sidering that the sinusoidal current waveform can obviously
reduce the turn-off current, resonant converters have
become a promising candidate for soft-switching appli-
cations. To minimize the phase difference between bridge
currents and voltages, thereby reducing the reactive power,
LCL and CLC resonant networks are employed into DAB
in [14] and [15], respectively. Based on series resonant
converter [16], [17], a phase shift and modified pulse-width
modulation strategy has been proposed in [16], which
simultaneously reduce the resonant tank current and extend
the ZVS range. In [17], zero reactive power, minimum tank
current, and complete soft-switching are all achieved by
modulating the internal, external phase shift and switching
frequency. However, since none of the topologies above
can simultaneously obtain a wide soft-switching range, a
simple control strategy and a good voltage regulation
capability, compromises are often needed. Fortunately,
these requirements can be fully achieved on LLC-type
resonant converters. The conventional LLC can realize a
wide ZVS range and a good voltage gain regulation under
the simple pulse frequency modulation (PFM) method [18].
In addition, CLL converter can be also regarded as an LLC-
type converter due to the similar conditions, such as the
series-parallel resonant structure, gain, and soft-switching
features [19], [20]. Unfortunately, since the voltage gain in
forward mode and backward mode are not consistent, the
conventional LLC-type converters are limited in
bidirectional applications. To solve this problem, it is a
great idea to improve the resonant tank and finally obtain a
bidirectional LLC-type structure. Based on this idea, by
adding extra capacitors or inductors, two typical state of the
art LLC-type IBDC topologies have gained much attention:
a) Bidirectional LLC (Bi-LLC) resonant topology [21]-
[24]. By adding an extra inductor in parallel with the input
port of the conventional LLC resonant tank, Bi-LLC
topology is firstly presented in [21] by Jiang et al. Since the
topology is equivalent to a parallel structure of an LLC
resonant tank and an inductor in both directions, the
excellent features of LLC can be extended to bidirectional
power flow applications. To further improve the voltage
gain regulation capability, a fixed-frequency pulse-width
modulation control method is applied to Bi-LLC in [22].
Moreover, by combining Bi-LLC with boost/buck converter
[23] or three-port converter [24], Bi-LLC has been fully
utilized in more practical applications.
b) CLLC resonant topology [25]-[29]. Compared with
LLC, this topology is proposed in [25] by arranging an
extra pair of capacitor and inductor in series on the
secondary side of the HFT. Since LLC structure in both
directions can be obtained, CLLC has been widely used in
charging systems [26]-[28]. By using a superimposed
output structure and integrating CLLC with a buck/boost
VOLUME XX, 2017
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
circuit [29], the converter’s voltage gain and dynamic
performances are further enhanced.
Based on these two typical topologies, although the
IBDCs’ ZVS range, bidirectional voltage gain and power
flow regulation capabilities have been improved, optimi-
zation on the resonant tank currents and the resonant
capacitor voltage stress has not been considered yet. The
excessive resonant tank currents will increase the power
losses, and the high resonant capacitor voltage stress will
not only increase the cost but also reduce the converter’s
reliability. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize the above
two indicators. Based on this consideration, a novel
bidirectional LLC-type resonant dc-dc converter, LLCL
converter, is proposed in this paper. The proposed converter
also has a simple structure and a simple control strategy.
The remaining parts of this paper are organized as follows:
Section II presents the LLCL topology derivation process
and its operating principles. The characteristics analyses are
shown in Section III. The parameter design ideas are
explained in Section IV. In Section V, the experiment
results based on a 500-W prototype are displayed. Finally,
the conclusions are summarized in Section VI.
II. TOPOLOGY DERIVATION AND OPERATING
PRINCIPLES
A. TOPOLOGY DERIVATION
According to the statement in Section I, for conventional
LLC-type resonant converters, the resonant tanks of LLC
and CLL can be shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b), respectively.
For LLC-type IBDC converters, the resonant tanks of Bi-
LLC and CLLC can be shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b),
respectively. With regard to CLLC illustrated in Fig. 2(b), it
can be noticed that in order to effectively utilize the
magnetizing inductor of the transformer T to reduce the size
of the total magnetic components, T should only be
paralleled with La. Hence, one of the two resonant
capacitors Cr and Cr’ will inevitably be placed on the high
voltage side, which may result in high capacitor voltage
stress. Meanwhile, 5 resonant elements also make the
structure complicated and cost increase. As a consequence,
Bi-LLC has more advantages from these points of view.
Thus, Bi-LLC rather than CLLC will be used as a break-
through point for the derivation of the new topology.
Lr Lr
Cr Cr
Uin La Uout Uin La Uout
(a) (b)
FIGURE 1. Conventional LLC-type resonant tanks. (a) LLC, (b) CLL.
n:1 n:1
U1 Lr U2 U1 Lr Lr U2
Cr Cr Cr
Lm La La
T T
(a) (b)
FIGURE 2. Two typical state of the art LLC-type IBDC resonant tanks.
(a) Bi-LLC, (b) CLLC.
9
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

For Bi-LLC shown in Fig. 2(a), the topology can be seen Forward-LLC
as adding an extra inductor Lm into the LLC resonant tank. Cr Lr 2 Cr Lr
Consequently, the LLC structure can be formed in both
directions. However, since Lm and La are voltage-clamped U1 Lm La U2 U1 Lm La U2
by U1 and U2, respectively, Lm and La cannot affect the 1
equivalent resonant inductance Leq (because the voltages of Forward Backward
Lm and La are square waveforms instead of sinusoidal wave- (a)
forms). Therefore, for Bi-LLC, Leq is equal to Lr. Backward-CLL Forward-LLC
To reduce the resonant tank currents, it can be achieved Lr Cr 2 Lr Cr
by increasing the resonant tank impedance. When the
current through the resonant capacitor is reduced, the cap-
U1 Lm La U2 U1 Lm La U2
acitor voltage stress will also decrease under the same cap- 1
acitance value. From this perspective, it thus seems to be a
good solution by increasing the inductance values of the Forward Backward
resonant tank. However, for Bi-LLC, if the inductance of Lr (b)
is increased, the resulting increase in Leq will change the FIGURE 3. Newly derived resonant tank topologies. (a) Topology-1, (b)
resonant frequency, characteristic impedance, and quality Topology-2.
factor, which in turn changes the working conditions of the
converter. If the inductance of Lm or La is increased, accord- derived topology-2 shown in Fig. 3(b) is finally selected.
ing to [21], the converter’s gain will change accordingly, For the design of the overall topology, the following
which will also change the converter’s working conditions. considerations are carried out:
Hence, simply increasing the actual inductance values to a) To utilize the magnetizing inductor of the transformer
increase the resonant tank impedance is not feasible. In T effectively, T should be paralleled with Lm or La.
other words, it is worthwhile to find a topology that has a b) To reduce the resonant capacitor voltage stress, Cr is
bidirectional LLC-type structure while having a higher re- arranged to the low voltage side (LVS).
sonant tank impedance under the same working conditions. c) To reduce the currents through the resonant inductors,
For the purpose of increasing the resonant tank impe- it is necessary to place as many inductors as possible to the
dance, this paper proposes a basic idea. That is, based on high voltage side (HVS).
Bi-LLC, if the connection way of Lm can be changed so that Based on these three considerations, the overall topology
Lm is no longer voltage-clamped, Lm will affect Leq. Further, of the proposed converter can be shown in Fig. 4, where the
from the perspective of the resonant currents flow paths, if left port is HVS and the right port is LVS. According to the
Lm can form a parallel resonant relation with Lr, Leq will connection way of the resonant capacitor and inductors, this
decrease and be equal to Lm // Lr. Thus, in order to maintain converter can be named as an LLCL converter.
the same Leq (same working conditions) as Bi-LLC, the
actual resonant inductance values of the new resonant tank S1 S3 Q1 Q3
Cr
need to be increased. Hence, compared with Bi-LLC, the n:1
new resonant tank will possibly have a higher impedance Lr
UH Lm La U
under the same working conditions. CH CL L
Based on this idea, two derived topologies can be T
S2 S4 parallel-connected Q2 Q4
obtained and illustrated in Fig. 3. Leq can be analyzed by the inductors structure
resonant currents. As can be seen from Fig. 3(a) and (b), the
resonant currents can be divided into two main flow paths.
FIGURE 4. Overall topology of the proposed LLCL converter.
For topology-1 shown in Fig. 3(a), starting from Cr, the first
current path flows through Lm and U1, and the second
current path flows through Lr, La (or U2), and U1. For B. OPERATING PRINCIPLES
topology-2 in Fig. 3(b), starting from Cr, the first current According to Section II-A, it can be found that LLCL can
path flows through La (or U2) and Lm, and the second be regarded as an LLC-type IBDC. Consequently, PFM
current path flows through La (or U2), U1, and Lr. Since La is control is adopted in this paper. When the switching
voltage-clamped by U2, La cannot affect Leq. Thus, accor- frequency fS is lower than the converter’s main resonant
ding to the resonant currents flow paths, it can be found that frequency, the output current of the resonant tank will cause
Leq of the two derived topologies are both equal to Lm // Lr. LLCL to operate in the discontinuous conduction mode
To ensure that the bidirectional LLC-type structure can (DCM), otherwise LLCL will work in the continuous
be obtained, when power is transmitted from U1 to U2, it conduction mode (CCM). Thus, operating principles of
can be observed from Fig. 3(a) and (b) that both topologies LLCL will be analyzed from forward mode and backward
can form an LLC structure by Lr, La, and Cr. However, mode according to DCM and CCM.
when the power direction is reversed, only topology-2 can 1) FORWARD MODE
obtain a CLL structure by Cr, Lr, and Lm. To this end, the In this mode, power is transmitted from HVS to LVS. The
key waveforms are shown in Fig. 5 based on DCM and

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

CCM. In DCM, there are 8 intervals in a complete switch- and then in series with La. Therefore, the converter
ing period. And the first 4 intervals are symmetric with the resonates at the secondary resonant frequency fr2_F in this
last 4 intervals. In CCM, 6 intervals can be demonstrated in interval. fr2_F can be expressed as:
a switching period. And the first 3 intervals are symmetric n Lm + Lr
with the last 3 intervals. Since the first 3 intervals in CCM f r2_F = . (3)
2 Cr (n La Lm + n2 La Lr + Lm Lr )
2
is consistent with the first 3 intervals in DCM, to simplify
the analysis, only the first 4 intervals in DCM are analyzed iCr_F iCr_F
in this paper. iCr_F, iLa_F, iLm_F, iLr_F, and uLr_F represent the
currents flowing through Cr, La, Lm, Lr, and the voltage iLa_F iLa_F
across Lr in forward mode, respectively. iLr_F iLr_F
Interval 1 [t0-t1, Fig. 6(a)]: At t0, S2 and S3 are turned OFF. iLm_F iLm_F
Since the current through Lr cannot be mutated, the current
iS1,iS4 iS2,iS3 iS1,iS4 iS2,iS3
flowing through S2 and S3 turns to flow through the
parasitic capacitors CS1~CS4 of S1~S4. CS2 and CS3 are
charged whereas CS1 and CS4 are discharged. This interval UDS:S2,S3 UDS:S1,S4 UDS:S2,S3 UDS:S1,S4
ends at t1 when the voltages of CS2 and CS3 rise to UH while iQ1,iQ4 iQ2,iQ3 iQ1,iQ4 iQ2,iQ3
the voltages across CS1 and CS4 drop to zero.
Interval 2 [t1-t2, Fig. 6(b)]: At t1, since the voltages UDS:Q2,Q3 UDS:Q1,Q4 UDS:Q2,Q3 UDS:Q1,Q4
across CS1 and CS4 drop to zero, the current through Lr
UGS:S1,S4 UGS:S2,S3 UGS:S1,S4 UGS:S2,S3
begins to flow through the body diodes DS1 and DS4 of S1 t0 t1t2 t3 t4 t5t6 t7 t8 t0 t1t2 t3t4 t5 t6
and S4, thereby creating a ZVS condition for S1 and S4 at t2. (a) (b)
Interval 3 [t2-t3, Fig. 6(c)]: At t2, S1 and S4 are turned ON
FIGURE 5. Key waveforms in forward mode. (a) DCM, (b) CCM.
with ZVS. Since the MOS-switches have smaller ON-
CS3
resistances than that of the diodes, the current through Lr S1 S3 Q1 Q3
CS1 Lr iCr_F
begins to flow through S1 and S4 instead of DS1 and DS4. n:1 Ro_L
iLr_F Lm
During interval 1 to interval 3, currents and voltages of the CH iLm_F
Cr La iLa_F CL
UL
UH
resonant components resonate at the main resonant T
S2 S4 Q2 Q4
frequency. By the synchronous rectification, power is CS2 CS4
always transmitted to the load Ro_L through Q1 and Q4. And (a)
La is always forward-charged by UL. But, since interval 1
and interval 2 are dead time durations, interval 3 becomes S1 S3 Q1 Q3
DS1 Lr iCr_F
n:1
the main stage of the power transmission and ends until iLr_F
Ro_L
Lm Cr La UL
iCr_F and iLa_F are equal at t3. The relation among currents UH CH iLm_F iLa_F CL
and voltages of the resonant components in interval 3 can S2 S4
T
Q2 Q4
be given as: DS4
 d U H − uLr_F (t ) − nU L (b)
iCr_F (t ) = Cr [ ]
 dt n S1 S3 Q1 Q3
 d d Lr n:1
iCr_F
U L = La iLa_F (t ), uLr_F (t ) = Lr iLr_F (t ) (1) Ro_L
iLr_F Lm
d t dt Cr La UL
 UH
CH iLm_F iLa_F CL
U − u (t ) = L d [i (t ) − 1 i (t )]. S2 S4
T
Q2 Q4
 H Lr_F m
dt
Lr_F
n
Cr_F

According to the previous discussion of the equivalent (c)

resonant inductance Leq in Section II-A, considering the S1 S3 Q1 Q3
influence of the transformer turns-ratio n, the main resonant Lr iCr_F
n:1 Ro_L
frequency fr1_F in forward mode can be shown as: iLr_F Lm C r La iLa_F UL
CH iLm_F CL
n Lm + Lr UH
T
f r1_F = . (2) S2 S4 Q2 Q4
2 Cr Lm Lr
Interval 4 [t3-t4, Fig. 6(d)]: In this interval, S1 and S4 are (d)
still ON. Since iCr_F and iLa_F are equal at t3, the current FIGURE 6. Corresponding equivalent circuits in forward mode.
through Q1 and Q4 decreases to zero. Thus, Q1 and Q4 are (a) Interval 1, (b) Interval 2, (c) Interval 3, (d) Interval 4.
turned OFF under zero current condition. La is no longer
charged by UL. Power is no longer transmitted to the load. 2) BACKWARD MODE
This interval is maintained until t4 when S1 and S4 are In this mode, power is transmitted from LVS to HVS. The
turned OFF. Also, due to the fact that La is not controlled by key waveforms in DCM and CCM are shown in Fig. 7. It is
UL, La participates in the resonant process. The equivalent clearly seen that the relation between DCM and CCM in
resonant inductance in this interval is Lr paralleled with Lm, backward mode is similar to that of forward mode. Thus, to

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

simplify the analysis, only the first 4 intervals in DCM are Interval 4 [t3-t4, Fig. 8(d)]: In this interval, Q1 and Q4 are
analyzed. iCr_B, iLa_B, iLm_B, iLr_B, and uLm_B represent the still ON, so La is still charged by UL. Since iCr_B_H and iLm_B
currents flowing through Cr, La, Lm, Lr, and the voltage are equal at t3, the current through S1 and S4 decreases to
across Lm in backward mode, respectively. zero. As a result, S1 and S4 are turned OFF under zero
Interval 1 [t0-t1, Fig. 8(a)]: At t0, Q2 and Q3 are turned current condition. Power is no longer transmitted to the
OFF. Since iCr_B is related to iLm_B and iLr_B, iCr_B and iLa_B load. This interval is maintained until t4 when Q1 and Q4 are
that cannot mutate make the current flowing through Q2 and turned OFF. Also, since there is no current through Lr,
Q3 turn to flow through the parasitic capacitors CQ1~CQ4 of currents and voltages of Cr and Lm resonate at the secondary
Q1~Q4. The parasitic capacitors charging and discharging resonant frequency fr2_B in this interval. fr2_B can be given as:
processes are similar to CS1~CS4 in forward mode. n 1
Interval 2 [t1-t2, Fig. 8(b)]: At t1, since the voltages f r2_B = . (5)
2 Cr Lm
across CQ1 and CQ4 drop to zero, the sum of iCr_B and iLa_B
begins to flow through the body diodes DQ1 and DQ4 of Q1
and Q4, thereby creating a ZVS condition for Q1 and Q4 at t2. S1 S3 Q1 Q3
La is forward-charged by UL. Lr iCr_B CQ1 CQ3
Ro_H n:1
Interval 3 [t2-t3, Fig. 8(c)]: At t2, Q1 and Q4 are turned ON iLr_B Lm Cr La
UH iLa_B
CH iLm_B CL
with ZVS. The sum of iCr_B and iLa_B flows to Q1 and Q4. La T
UL
is forward-charged by UL. During interval 1 to interval 3, S2 S4 Q2 Q4
CQ2 CQ4
currents and voltages of the resonant components resonate
at the main resonant frequency, and power is always (a)
transmitted to the load Ro_H through S1 and S4. But, since S1 S3 Q1 Q3
Lr n:1 iCr_B DQ1
interval 1 and interval 2 are dead time durations, interval 3 Ro_H
iLr_B Lm
becomes the main stage of power transmission and ends UH
CH
Cr La iLa_B CL
iLm_B UL
until iCr_B_H (the value converted to HVS by iCr_B) and iLm_B T
S2 S4 Q2 Q4
are equal at t3. The relation among currents and voltages of
DQ4
the resonant components in interval 3 can be expressed as:
(b)
 d nU L − uLm_B (t )
iCr_B (t ) = Cr [ ] S1 S3 Q1
iCr_B
Q3
 dt n Ro_H
Lr n:1
 d d iLr_B
U L = La iLa_B (t ), uLm_B (t ) = Lm iLm_B (t ) UH Lm Cr La
(4) CH iLm_B
iLa_B CL
 d t dt T
UL
u d 1 S2 S4 Q2 Q4
Lm_B (t ) − U H = Lr [ iCr_B (t ) − iLm_B (t )].

 dt n
(c)
According to the analysis in Section II-A, at the stage
S1 S3 Q1 Q3
where power can be transmitted, Leq will be the same in Lr n:1 iCr_B
Ro_H
forward and backward modes. Thus, the main resonant UH Lm Cr La
CH iLa_B CL
frequency fr1_B in backward mode is the same with fr1_F. For iLm_B UL
T
simplification, the main resonant frequency in both forward S2 S4 Q2 Q4
and backward modes can be collectively referred to as fr1.
(d)
iCr_B_H iCr_B_H FIGURE 8. Corresponding equivalent circuits in backward mode.
(a) Interval 1, (b) Interval 2, (c) Interval 3, (d) Interval 4.
iLm_B iLm_B
iLa_B iLa_B III. CHARACTERISTICS ANALYSES

iLr_B iLr_B A. DC VOLTAGE GAIN ANALYSIS

For gain analysis, the fundamental harmonic approximation
iQ1,iQ4 iQ2,iQ3 iQ1,iQ4 iQ2,iQ3 (FHA) method is adopted in this paper. Fig. 9 shows the
FHA equivalent circuits of LLCL in forward and backward
UDS:Q2,Q3 UDS:Q1,Q4 UDS:Q2,Q3 UDS:Q1,Q4 modes. EiF, EoF, and Req_L are the input voltage, output
voltage and equivalent ac load resistance, respectively, of
iS1,iS4 iS2,iS3 iS1,iS4 iS2,iS3 the resonant tank in forward mode, whereas EiB, EoB, and
Req_H are the corresponding meanings in backward mode.
UDS:S2,S3 UDS:S1,S4 UDS:S2,S3 UDS:S1,S4
Expressions of Req_L and Req_H are given in (6) according to
UGS:Q1,Q4 UGS:Q2,Q3 UGS:Q1,Q4 UGS:Q2,Q3 [25]. Meanwhile, the equivalent resonant capacitance Ceq,
t0t1t2 t3 t4 t5t6 t7 t8 t0 t1t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 equivalent resonant inductance Leq, inductance ratios k and
(a) (b) g, normalized switching frequency fn, and quality factor in
FIGURE 7. Key waveforms in backward mode. (a) DCM, (b) CCM. forward mode (QF) and backward mode (QB) are also given

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

or defined in (6). By means of (2), (6), Fig. 9, and resonant frequency, according to Fig. 6(c) and Fig. 8(c),
Kirchhoff’s current/voltage laws, the dc voltage gain of some extra equations in forward mode and backward mode
LLCL in forward mode (MF) and backward mode (MB) can can be obtained and shown in (9) and (10), respectively.
be deduced as (7) and (8), respectively. By combining (1), (4), (9), and (10), current and voltage
 8 8 Cr Lm Lr expressions in LLCL resonant tank can be obtained. Since
 Req_L =  2 Ro_L , Req_H =  2 Ro_H , Ceq = n 2 , Leq = L + L LLCL is derived from Bi-LLC, to demonstrate the effect of
 m r
LLCL in reducing the resonant tank currents and the
 L /C L /C
(6)
k = Lr , g = La , f = fS , Q = eq eq , Q = eq eq resonant capacitor voltage stress, Bi-LLC shown in Fig. 2(a)
 Lm Lm
n
f r1
F
n 2 Req_L
B
Req_H will be analyzed as a comparative topology in this section.

Meanwhile, according to (7) and (8), it can be observed that
UL ( /2 2) EoF the voltage gain of LLCL is directly affected by the
MF = =
UH ( /2 2) EiF transformer turns-ratio, quality factor, and the resonant
1 (7) inductance ratios, which is similar to the other LLC-type
= resonant converters. Hence, these variables that reflect the
k 1 1 converters’ working conditions will be considered in the
[ (1 − 2 ) + (1 + k )n]2 + QF2 ( f n − ) 2 (1 + k ) 2 n 2
gn fn fn comparisons. To eliminate the side effects of the trans-
former turns-ratio, n=1 is adopted for both converters in
U H ( /2 2) EoB
MB = = current and voltage comparisons.
UL ( /2 2) EiB  TS
1 (8) iCr_F (0) = iLa_F (0), iLa_F (0) = −iLa_F ( 2 )
=
1 k 1 1  T 2 TS U (9)
[ − 2 ]2 + QB2 ( f n − ) 2 (1 + k ) 2 2 iLm_F (0) = −iLm_F ( S ),  2 [iCr_F (t ) − iLa_F (t )]dt = L
n f n (1 + k )n fn n  2 TS 0 Ro_L
Based on (7) and (8), curves of MF and MB are presented
 TS
in Fig. 10. When LLCL operates near the main resonant iCr_B (0) = niLm_B (0), iLa_B (0) = −iLa_B ( 2 )
frequency fr1 (i.e., fn is around 1), it can be seen that MF and  T 2 TS i (t ) U (10)
MB both gradually decrease as fn increases, which means the iLm_B (0) = −iLm_B ( S ),  2 [ Cr_B − iLm_B (t )]dt = H
voltage gain can be effectively regulated by regulating the  2 TS 0 n Ro_H
switching frequency fS. Meanwhile, MF and MB are exactly where TS is the switching period.
the reciprocal of each other when fn=1, which is benefit for
matching UH and UL. Moreover, when fn is slightly lower
than 1, not only MF but also MB can rise as fn reduces, 1) INPUT AND OUTPUT CURRENTS OF THE RESONANT
which is also a major improvement over conventional LLC- TANK
type converters in bidirectional applications. With regard to the resonant tank, since its input and output
1 1 current are equal to the current through the inverter
iLr_F sLr iCr_F sCr io_F iLr_B sLr iCr_B sCr switches and rectifier switches, respectively, these currents
n:1 n:1 will ultimately affect the switch conduction losses. There-
sLa Req_L EoF EoB Req_H
fore, analysis of the resonant tank’s input root-mean-square
EiF sLm sLa EiB
sLm (RMS) current (IRMSC) and output RMS current (ORMSC)
T T is very important. For LLCL, according to (1), (4), (9), and
(a) (b) (10), time domain expressions of the resonant tank’s input
FIGURE 9. FHA equivalent circuits of LLCL converter. (a) Forward current (iin_F(t) in forward mode, iin_B(t) in backward mode)
mode, (b) Backward mode.
2.5 2.5
and output current (iout_F(t) in forward mode, iout_B(t) in
QF=0.5 QF=0.3 QB=0.5 QB=0.3 backward mode) can be totally shown in (11). Based on (11)
2 QF=0.4 QF=0.2 2 QB=0.4 QB=0.2
and the variables announced in (6), by taking the dc output
MB(fn=1)=(1+k)n current as the base value, the normalized IRMSC Iin(norm)
1.5 1 1.5
MF MF(fn=1)= MB
(1+k)n and the normalized ORMSC Iout(norm) can be given by (12).
1 1
The intermediate variables A~F in (12) are listed in Table I.
0.5 0.5 By choosing the same base value, the normalized IRMSC
k=0.25, g=1, n=1 k=0.25, g=1, n=1
0 0 Iin(norm) and ORMSC Iout(norm) of Bi-LLC can also be
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
fn fn given by (12). For intermediate variables A~F fit for Bi-
(a) (b) LLC under n=1, they are also given in Table I for further
FIGURE 10. DC voltage gain curves of LLCL converter. (a) Forward
comparison (time domain expressions of iin_F(t), iin_B(t),
mode, (b) Backward mode. iout_F(t), and iout_B(t) of Bi-LLC are given in the appendix).
Based on (12) and Table I, when n=1 and g=1, the nor-
B. RESONANT TANK ANALYSIS malized IRMSC and ORMSC comparison results between
To simplify the analysis, the switching dead time is ignored LLCL and Bi-LLC are illustrated in Fig. 11. As seen in Fig.
in this section. Therefore, when LLCL operates at the main 11(a) and (c), LLCL has lower IRMSC and lower ORMSC

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

over a wide range of k and QF in forward mode. When Iin_F(norm) Iin_B(norm)

20 20
backward mode is applied, it is clearly seen from Fig. 11(d) Bi-LLC Bi-LLC
15 15
that the ORMSC of LLCL is always lower than that of Bi- 10
LLCL
10
LLCL
LLC. For IRMSC, as noticed in Fig. 11(b), although the 5 5
value of LLCL is higher than that of Bi-LLC when k is low 0.5 0.5
and QB is high, the IRMSC value difference is quite small 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 k
in these cases. Thus, performance difference can be ignored. QF 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 k QB 0.1 0
However, as k increases and QB decreases, lower IRMSC (a) (b)
will still become more and more apparent in LLCL. Conse- Iout_F(norm) Iout_B(norm)
quently, in the case of wide k and wide load (QF or QB) 3 3
conditions, compared with Bi-LLC, LLCL has obvious 2.5 Bi-LLC 2.5 Bi-LLC
LLCL LLCL
advantages in reducing IRMSC and ORMSC, which is 2 2
benefit for improving efficiency. 1.5 1.5

 4U L k U L 0.5 0.5
iin_F (t ) = (1 + k ) nR sin r t − 2 g (1 + k ) 2 n3Q R cos r t
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
0.2 0.1 0.2 k QB 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 k
 eq_L F eq_L QF 0.1 0
 kU L k U L (c) (d)
 + r t −
(1 + k )nQF Req_L 2(1 + k )nQF Req_L FIGURE 11. Normalized IRMSC and ORMSC comparisons between
 LLCL and Bi-LLC.
i (t ) = 4(1 + k ) nU H sin  t − k nU H (a) IRMSC, forward mode, (b) IRMSC, backward mode,
 in_B cos r t (c) ORMSC, forward mode, (d) ORMSC, backward mode.
 Req_H 2(1 + k )QB Req_H
r


 kU H k U H current ioff_F of LLCL’s inverter switch in forward mode

+ r t − can be calculated by iin_F(t). Similarly, turn-off current ioff_B
g (1 + k ) nQB Req_H
2
2g (1 + k ) 2 nQB Req_H
 4U L k U L
of the inverter switch in backward mode can be calculated
iout_F (t ) = sin r t − cos r t by iin_B(t). The results of ioff_F and ioff_B are shown in (14).
  Req_L 2 g (1 + k ) n 2 QF Req_L 1
 kU L k U L Poff = U ds ioff Toff fS (13)
 − r t + 6
 g (1 + k )n QF Req_L
2
2 g (1 + k )n 2QF Req_L

 TS k U L [ g (1 + k )n 2 + 1]
4U H k U H ioff_F = iin_F ( ) =
iout_B (t ) = sin r t − cos r t  2 2 g (1 + k ) 2 n3QF Req_L
  Req_H 2(1 + k ) 2 QB Req_H  (14)
 i TS k U H [ g (1 + k )n 2 + 1]
kU H k U H =i ( )=
 − r t +  off_B in_B 2
 2g (1 + k ) 2 nQB Req_H
 (1 + k ) QB Req_H
2
2(1 + k ) 2 QB Req_H
When the dc output current is taken as the base value, the
(11) normalized inverter switch turn-off current Ioff(norm) of
 6 A + 6 B + 48BC +  C
2 2 3 2
LLCL in forward and backward modes can be given in
 I in (norm) =
 12 Table II. By combining the expressions of ioff_F and ioff_B of
 (12) Bi-LLC given in the appendix, Ioff(norm) of Bi-LLC under
 I (norm) = 6 D + 6 E + 48EF +  F
2 2 3 2
n=1 are also shown in Table II for the comparison.
 out 12 From Table II, it can be noticed that the normalized turn-
Also, according to [30], for an inverter power switch, the off current values in forward mode and backward mode are
relation between its turn-off loss Poff and turn-off current ioff the same when n=1, so the comparison between LLCL and
can be given in (13), where Uds is its drain-source voltage Bi-LLC in both forward and backward modes can be shown
and Toff is its turn-off time. It means the turn-off loss and in a single figure (Fig. 12). Compared with Bi-LLC, when
the turn-off current have a positive correlation when Uds, n=1 and g=1, it can be seen that LLCL has lower turn-off
Toff, and fS are all the same. Thus, it is meaningful to reduce current over a wide range of k and quality factor (QF and
the turn-off current of the inverter switch. Based on (11), QB), which means LLCL has obvious potential to reduce
when t is equal to the half switching period TS/2, turn-off the switch turn-off losses.
TABLE I
INTERMEDIATE VARIABLES IN (12)
Forward mode Backward mode
 k 3 k 2 (1 + k )n kn 3 k 2
A= ,B = ,C = A= ,B = ,C =
2(1 + k )n 16g (1 + k ) n QF
2 3
8(1 + k )nQF 2 16(1 + k )QB 8g (1 + k ) 2 nQB
LLCL
 k 3 k 2  k 3 k 2
D= ,E = ,F = − D= ,E = ,F = −
2 16g (1 + k )n 2QF 8g (1 + k )n 2QF 2 16(1 + k ) 2 QB 8(1 + k ) 2 QB

Bi-LLC  k 3 k 2 k 2  k 3 k 2 k 2
A= D= ,B = E = ,C = ,F = − A= D= ,B = E = ,C = ,F = −
(n=1) 2 16gQF 8QF 8gQF 2 16QB 8gQB 8QB

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

TABLE II
 kU L k U L
NORMALIZED TURN-OFF CURRENT EXPRESSIONS
iLa_F (t ) = g (1 + k )n 2 Q R r t − 2 g (1 + k )n 2Q R
Forward mode Backward mode  F eq_L F eq_L

[1 + g (1 + k )n2 ]k 3 [1 + g (1 + k )n2 ]k 3  kU H k U H

LLCL
16g (1 + k )2 n3QF 16g (1 + k )2 nQB
iLa_B (t ) = g (1 + k ) 2 nQ R r t − 2 g (1 + k ) 2 nQ R
 B eq_H B eq_H

(1 + g )k 3 (1 + g )k 3  −4kU L k 2 U L

iLm_F (t ) = (1+k ) nR sin r t + 2 g (1+k ) 2 n3Q R cos r t
Bi-LLC
(n=1) 16gQF 16gQB
 eq_L F eq_L
Ioff(norm)  kU L k U L
 + r t −
35
30 Bi-LLC  (1 + k )nQF Req_L 2(1 + k )nQF Req_L
25 LLCL  4kU H k 2 U H
20 iLm_B (t ) = sin r t − cos r t
15   Req_H 2(1 + k ) 2 QB Req_H
10  kU H k U H
5
 + r t −
0
0.1  (1 + k ) QB Req_H
2
2(1 + k ) 2 QB Req_H
0.2
0.3 0.2 0.1
0
iLr_F (t ) = iin_F (t ), iLr_B (t ) = iout_B (t )
QF (QB) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 k 

FIGURE 12. Normalized inverter switch turn-off current comparison
between LLCL and Bi-LLC in both forward and backward modes. (16)
  a
 I La (norm)= 12
2) CURRENTS AND VOLTAGES OF THE RESONANT 
COMPONENTS  6 k 2 b 2 +6 k 2 c 2 − 48kcd + 3 d 2
As for the resonant inductors, their winding equivalent ac LLCL :  I Lm (norm)= (17)
 12
resistances will generate winding losses. For the resonant
 6 b 2 +6 c 2 +48cd + 3 d 2
capacitor, on one hand, voltage stress is an important consi-  I Lr (norm)=
deration that determine the capacitor cost and reliability. On  12
the other hand, the capacitor losses are generally composed  a b
of the dielectric losses Pd [29], whose relation with the  I La (norm) = 12 , I Lm (norm) = 12
peak-to-peak voltage UCr_pp of capacitor Cr can be shown in Bi-LLC :  (18)
 I (norm) = c + d
2 2
(15). It means that the capacitor losses are generally related
to the voltage stress of the capacitor. Thus, it is necessary to  Lr 2
reduce the RMS currents through the resonant inductors By combining (17), (18), and Table III, when n=1 and
and the voltage stress of the resonant capacitor. g=1, the resonant inductors’ normalized RMS current com-
Pd = CrU Cr_pp fS tan  (15) parisons between LLCL and Bi-LLC in forward and back-
where tanδ is the capacitor dielectric loss factor. ward modes can be totally shown in Fig. 13. As can be seen,
For LLCL converter, the current through La (iLa_F(t) in although in some cases, the inductor RMS current values of
forward mode, iLa_B(t) in backward mode), Lm (iLm_F(t) in LLCL are greater than the corresponding values of Bi-LLC,
forward mode, iLm_B(t) in backward mode), and Lr (iLr_F(t) in the values difference of the two converters in these cases
forward mode, iLr_B(t) in backward mode) are all shown in are all so small, so performance difference can be ignored.
(16). Based on (16), by taking the dc output current as the However, when the current values difference between the
base value, the corresponding normalized RMS currents two converters is obvious, LLCL can always obtain a lower
ILa(norm), ILm(norm), and ILr(norm) can be derived as (17). value than that of Bi-LLC. As a result, higher efficiency
The intermediate variables a~d in (17) are listed in Table III. will be achieved in LLCL due to the lower winding losses.
According to the same base value, ILa(norm), ILm(norm), Also, for LLCL, the resonant capacitor voltage expres-
and ILr(norm) of Bi-LLC can be shown in (18). Its interme- sions (uCr_F(t) in forward mode, uCr_B(t) in backward mode)
diate variables a~d under n=1 are also listed in Table III so can be given in (19). Based on (19), the peak voltage of the
as to make the comparison (iLa_F(t), iLa_B(t), iLm_F(t), iLm_B(t), resonant capacitor (voltage stress) can be obtained easily.
iLr_F(t), and iLr_B(t) of Bi-LLC are given in the appendix). By selecting the dc output voltage as the base value, the

TABLE III
INTERMEDIATE VARIABLES IN (17) AND (18)

Forward mode Backward mode

LLCL in k 2  k 3 k 2 k 2  k 3 k 2
a= ,b = ,c = ,d = a= ,b = ,c = ,d = −
(17) 8g (1 + k )n QF
2
2(1 + k )n 16g (1 + k ) n QF
2 3
8(1 + k )nQF 8g (1 + k ) nQB
2
2 16(1 + k ) QB
2
8(1 + k )2 QB
Bi-LLC in k 2 k 2  k 3 k 2 k 2  k 3
a= ,b = ,c = ,d = a= ,b = ,c = ,d =
(18) (n=1) 8gQF 8QF 2 16gQF 8gQB 8QB 2 16QB

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

ILa_F(norm) ILa_B(norm) UCr_F(norm) UCr_B(norm)

Bi-LLC
10 10 1
1
8 Bi-LLC 8 Bi-LLC 0.8
0.8
6 LLCL 6 LLCL 0.6
4 4 0.6
0.4
2 2 0.4
Bi-LLC 0.2
0.5 0.5 0.2 LLCL 0.4
0.4 0.4 LLCL
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0 0.6 0.30.2
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2
QF 0.1 0 0.1 k QB 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 k 0.2
0.4
QB0.1 0 0
0.3 0.4
0.3 0.4 0 QF 0.1 0.2 k
k
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
ILm_F(norm) ILm_B(norm) FIGURE 14. Normalized resonant capacitor voltage stress compari-
10 10 sons between LLCL and Bi-LLC. (a) Forward mode, (b) Backward mode.
8 Bi-LLC 8 Bi-LLC
6 LLCL 6 LLCL
4 4 At last, it should be noted that all of the above
2 2 comparison results have similar characteristics when g is
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 taken other reasonable values. Hence, the comparison
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 results under other g are no longer given to save space.
QF 0.1 0 k QB 0.1 0 0.1 k
(c) (d)
ILr_F(norm) ILr_B(norm)
C. COMPARISONS WITH CLLC
15 12 For CLLC shown in Fig. 2(b), three Y-connected inductors
Bi-LLC 10 Bi-LLC can also make the converter have a parallel-connected
10 LLCL 8 LLCL
6 inductors structure in bidirectional operations. However,
5 4
2 because its overall structure has many differences with
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
LLCL and Bi-LLC, and more resonant elements also make
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 it difficult to obtain the accurate resonant current and volt-
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
QF 0.1 0 0.1 k QB 0.1 0 0.1 k age time domain expressions, CLLC has not been compared
(e) (f) in the previous analysis. To this end, this section will use
FIGURE 13. Normalized resonant inductors RMS current comparisons
between LLCL and Bi-LLC. PSIM software to simulate the performance difference
(a) Current of La, forward mode, (b) Current of La, backward mode, between LLCL and CLLC. The parameters of LLCL in the
(c) Current of Lm, forward mode, (d) Current of Lm, backward mode,
(e) Current of Lr, forward mode, (f) Current of Lr, backward mode.
simulation are set as the experimental parameters in Section
V, and CLLC is parameterized according to the same rated
normalized voltage stresses (UCr_F(norm) in forward mode power, rated output voltage, quality factor, main resonant
and UCr_B(norm) in backward mode) can be calculated and frequency, inductance ratio k, and transformer turns-ratio.
shown in Table IV. For comparison, UCr_F(norm) and Table V shows the simulation results of LLCL and
UCr_B(norm) of Bi-LLC under n=1 are also listed (uCr_F(t) CLLC operating at their main resonant frequency (100kHz),
and uCr_B(t) of Bi-LLC are given in the appendix). rated power (500W), and rated output voltage (50V in
 −k U L 8 g (1 + k )n 2QF forward mode and 200V in backward mode). Since both
uCr_F (t ) = [ cos r t + sin r t ] LLCL and CLLC have three resonant inductors, the induc-
 2g (1 + k )n 2 k 2
 (19) tors can be called as inductor-1, inductor-2, and inductor-3
u (t ) = −k U H [ 8(1 + k ) QB cos  t + sin  t ]
2
for convenience. In terms of the resonant tank currents, it
 Cr_B 2(1 + k )n k 2
r r
can be found from Table V that although LLCL has only a
TABLE IV slight advantage in reducing IRMSC, ORMSC, and inverter
NORMALIZED RESONANT CAPACITOR VOLTAGE STRESS EXPRESSIONS switch turn-off current, the advantage in reducing resonant
Forward mode Backward mode inductors RMS currents is quite obvious. It shows that
k k although CLLC also has a parallel-connected inductors
 
2g (1 + k )n 2 2(1 + k )n structure, the currents inside the CLLC resonant tank are
LLCL
64g 2 (1 + k )2 n 4QF2 64(1 + k ) 4 QB2 still higher than that of LLCL due to the specific structure
+1 +1
k 2 4 k 2 4 difference. In addition, for the resonant capacitor voltage
Bi-LLC k 64g 2QF2 k 64QB2
stress comparisons, LLCL has lower values in both power
+1 +1 directions. And this advantage is particularly obvious in
(n=1) 2g k 2 4 2 k 2 4
forward mode, which can be attributed to the fact that in
Based on Table IV, Fig. 14 shows the normalized reso- order to effectively utilize the transformer magnetizing
nant capacitor voltage stress comparison results between inductor, the position of the transformer will make one of
LLCL and Bi-LLC in both modes when n=1 and g=1. It can the two capacitors in CLLC be inevitably placed on HVS.
be seen that LLCL always has a lower value in forward In summary, owing to the lower resonant tank currents,
mode. In backward mode, since the too small inductance LLCL can achieve higher efficiency than CLLC. Further,
ratio k will limit the voltage boost capability of the LLC-
since LLCL also reduces the voltage stress and amount of the
type resonant converters [31], LLCL will also obtain lower
resonant capacitors, higher reliability and lower cost will also
voltage stress over a reasonable selection range of k,
become the advantages of LLCL.
especially under light load (light QB) conditions.

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

TABLE V storage batteries connected to LVS, the rated voltage value

COMPARISONS BETWEEN LLCL AND CLLC
on LVS is set to 50V and the fluctuation range is between
Converters LLCL CLLC
45V and 55V. Therefore, when the high dc bus voltage is
Forward Backward Forward Backward
Power flow mode
mode mode mode mode set to 200V, the voltage gain of LLCL needs to meet the
IRMSC (A) 4.38 16.44 5.56 17.84 following requirements.
ORMSC (A) 10.83 2.70 10.84 2.72 Constraint 3-1: Voltage gain at the main resonant
Inverter switch frequency fr1.
5.39 19.41 6.54 24.05
turn-off current (A)
RMS current of
According to (7) and (8), when LLCL operates at the
4.38 2.70 5.56 2.72 main resonant frequency fr1 (i.e., fn=1), it can be found that
inductor-1 (A)
RMS current of
5.82 5.84 10.84 17.84
the ratio between UH and UL is constant at (1+k)n regardless
inductor-2 (A) of the direction and amplitude of the transferred power.
RMS current of
inductor-3 (A)
1.42 2.40 3.93 5.23 Hence, to make the voltage gain of LLCL exactly match the
Resonant capacitor 94.71 47.69 rated values of UH and UL when fS=fr1, set:
43.13 42.33
voltage stresses (V) 21.05 32.98 (1 + k )n = 4. (23)
Efficiency/reliabi-
lity under the same High Low Constraint 3-2: Voltage gain range.
working conditions To make LLCL effectively match the fluctuating LVS
Resonant compo- 3 inductors 3 inductors voltage within the limited fn range, the voltage gains MF and
nents amount 1 capacitor 2 capacitors MB at the fn boundary shown in (22) should satisfy (24).
Cost Low High
Moreover, within the entire fn range, MF and MB need to
decrease monotonically along with the switching frequency
IV. PARAMETER DESIGN
increment to ensure the effectiveness of PFM control.
 M F ( f n = 0.75)  0.275, M F ( f n = 1.25)  0.225
A. VOLTAGE GAIN RANGE POINT OF VIEW  M ( f = 0.75)  4.45, M ( f = 1.25)  3.6 (24)
For LLC-type resonant converters with PFM control  B n B n

method, in addition to the transformer turns-ratio, their Meanwhile, by substituting (23) into (7) and (8), MF and
voltage gain will also be affected by the resonant MB can be rewritten as:
inductance ratios, quality factor, and the normalized 1
switching frequency. Therefore, the width of the voltage MF = (25)
k (1 + k ) 1 1 2
gain range will also be determined by the above parameters. [ (1 − 2 ) + 4] + 16QF ( f n − )
2 2

Hence, to make LLCL have a desirable voltage gain range,
three selection constraints are carried out to determine the
relevant parameters step by step.
Constraint 1: Preliminary selection of k and g based on
suppression of excessive resonant tank currents.
For LLC-type converters, to prevent excessive currents in
the resonant tank, the inductance of the parallel inductor
(such as the magnetizing inductance of conventional LLC)
should not be too small [31]. Thus, for LLCL, the value
relations among its series inductor (Lr) and parallel induc-
tors (La and Lm) can be set as (20). By combining (6), (20)
can be further organized into (21) containing k and g.
Lr / Lm  0.4, Lr / (n 2 La )  0.4 (20)
k  0.4, g  k / (0.4n 2 ) (21)
Constraint 2: Maximum range of the normalized
switching frequency fn.
For LLC-type converters with PFM control method, the
conversion efficiency will decrease as the switching
frequency moves away from the main resonant frequency.
Thus, it is best to make the switching frequency near the
main resonant frequency while obtaining the desired gain
range. To this end, the maximum variation range of the
switching frequency in forward and backward modes are
both set as 0.75fr1≤fS≤1.25fr1, which means:
0.75  f n  1.25. (22)
Constraint 3: Voltage gain requirements.
To simulate the terminal voltage feature of the energy
4g fn fn
4
MB = . (26)
k 1
[(1 + k ) − 2 ]2 + QB2 ( f n − ) 2 (1 + k ) 4
fn fn
It is clearly seen from (25) and (26) that MF is related to k,
g, QF, and fn, whereas MB is only related to k, QB, and fn.
Therefore, to simplify the design difficulty, the constraints
on MB can be firstly analyzed to determine the reasonable
value ranges of k and QB.
Constraint 3-2-1: MB(fn=1.25)<3.6.
Fig. 15(a) is a graphic of MB versus k and QB when
fn=1.25. It is seen that under the same k, MB will decrease as
the load (QB) increases. Since this constraint limits the
upper limit of MB, attention should be paid to the light load
condition. According to Fig. 15(a), it can be found that k
needs to be greater than 0.31 to ensure that this constraint
can still be satisfied in near no-load operation. On the other
hand, to simplify the transformer design, the turns-ratio n
can be taken as an integer as much as possible. Since (21)
requires k to be less than 0.4, the relation between k and n
shown in (23) can be combined to choose:
k = 0.333, n = 3. (27)
Constraint 3-2-2: MB(fn=0.75)>4.45.
Fig. 15(b) is a graphic of MB versus k and QB when
fn=0.75. It indicates that QB and MB are also reversely
correlated under the same k. Therefore, when k=0.333, to
ensure this constraint from light to full load operations,

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

according to Fig. 15(b), QB should meet (28) at full load and Cr in this section. Two constraints for Lm, La, and Cr
QB  0.49. (28) selection ranges can be summarized as follows:
Constraint 3-2-3: MF(fn=0.75)>0.275. Constraint 1: To achieve ZVS, turn-off currents of the
After the selection of k, the relation between QF and g inverter switch in forward and backward modes should both
can be determined by analyzing MF. Fig. 15(c) is a graphic be greater than zero, which ensure the complete charging
of MF versus QF and g when fn=0.75. Based on Fig. 15(c), and discharging to the parasitic capacitors. Meanwhile, too
to ensure this constraint from light to full load conditions, large turn-off currents should also be avoided, otherwise
relation between QF and g can be approximately obtained they will bring excessive turn-off losses. Thus, based on the
with a certain margin: rated power of 500W and rated voltage levels, the
QF + 7g  1.3. (29) approximate ranges of Lm and La can be determined.
Constraint 2: The main resonant frequency fr1 of the
Constraint 3-2-4: MF(fn=1.25)<0.225. converter is set to around 100kHz, and the approximate
Fig. 15(d) is a graphic of MF versus QF and g when fn= range of Cr can thus be obtained by (2) and constraint 1.
1.25. By approximating the intersection curve of the volt- With these two constraints, the final parameter selection
age gain and MF=0.225 plane, QF and g need to satisfy the ranges and steps are determined as Table VI shown.
following relation to ensure MF<0.225: When the main resonant frequency fr1 is within 98-102
QF2 ( g − 0.4) 2 kHz, the final selection results that can meet the constraints
+  1. (30)
0.952 0.312 in Section IV-A while having the lowest IRMSCs,
On one hand, by combining (21) and (27), it can be con- ORMSCs, inverter switch turn-off currents, and resonant
cluded that g needs to be greater than 0.0925. On the other inductors RMS currents can be obtained by MATLAB. For
hand, it can be seen that if (30) can be satisfied under light ease of operation in practical, by approximating the
load condition (i.e., small QF), it is satisfied under any load MATLAB selection results, the final parameter values are
conditions. Hence, g<0.1 is a reasonable choice. Therefore, shown in Table VII.
TABLE VI
the final range of g can be set as:
RANGES AND STEPS FOR PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION
0.0925  g  0.1. (31)
Selection ranges
Optimization Selection
MB parameters Minimum Maximum steps
MB 6
5.5 Inductance Lm 60μH 900μH 15μH
4 5 Inductance La (60/n2)μH (900/n2)μH (15/n2)μH
3.8 4.5
3.6
4 Capacitance Cr 90nF 1800nF 45nF
3.4
3.2 3.5
3
0.1 0.1
0 0.2 V. EXPERIMENTS
0.2
0.3
0.4 0.3
0.2
k QB 0.4 0.2 0.1 0
To verify the theoretical analyses of LLCL, a 500-W
QB 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3
k
(a) (b) prototype presented in Fig. 16 is established and evaluated.
MF
0.5 MF The experimental parameters are listed in Table VII.
0.45
0.4 0.25
0.35 0.23 T
0.3 HVS port La LVS port
0.25 0.21
0.2 0.19
0.2 0.4 0 CH
0.6 0.3 0.4
0.2 0.8
QF 1 0.1 g 0.1 1.2 QF Lr
0.4 0.3 g 0.2 Cr
(c) (d) CL
FIGURE 15. 3-D relations of the voltage gain with quality factor and Control
inductance ratio. and
sample
(a) MB versus QB and k under fn=1.25, part
(b) MB versus QB and k under fn=0.75,
(c) MF versus QF and g under fn=0.75, FIGURE 16. Photograph of the LLCL prototype built in the laboratory.
(d) MF versus QF and g under fn=1.25. TABLE VII
EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS
B. RESONANT TANK CURRENTS POINT OF VIEW Parameters Values and/or types
Based on the preliminary selection in Section IV-A, this Rated power Pn 500W
section will finalize the parameters from the perspective of Rated value of UH 200V
reducing the resonant tank currents. To avoid complex Range/rated value of UL 45V-55V/50V
Main resonant frequency fr1 100kHz
formula calculations and provide reliable results, a Maximum range of fS 75kHz-125kHz
MATLAB-aid parameter selection method is adopted. Inductor Lr 45μH (PQ2625-PC95)
Within the set selection ranges and selection steps, the Magnetizing inductor Lm 135μH (PQ3535-PC95)
parameter results that can meet the constraints in Section Transformer turns-ratio n 3
Inductor La 13μH (PQ2620-PC95)
IV-A while having the minimum resonant tank currents will Capacitor Cr 680nF (WIMA/film)
be filtered automatically. Since k and n have been deter- HVS MOSFETs: S1~S4 IXFH50N30Q3
mined, it is only necessary to determine the values of Lm, La, LVS MOSFETs: Q1~Q4 IPB036N12N3G

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

Fig. 17 shows the experimental waveforms in forward

uQ1_G(25V/div) uQ1_G(25V/div)
mode. Each subfigure shows the driving voltage of S1, uS1_G,
drain-source voltage of S1, uS1, drain-source voltage of Q1,
uQ1(50V/div) uQ1(50V/div)
uQ1, and the current through Lr, iLr_F. The waveforms shown
in Fig. 17(a), (b), and (c) are all tested at UH=200V and uS1(100V/div) uS1(100V/div)
Ro_L=5Ω, whereas fS are 83kHz, 100kHz, and 115kHz, iCr_B
respectively. By observing uQ1, it can be seen that UL equals (50A/div) iCr_B(50A/div)
t(4μs/div) t(4μs/div)
55V at 83kHz, 50V at 100kHz, and 45V at 115kHz, which (a) (b)
means the demand voltage regulation range can be achieved uQ1_G(25V/div)
uQ1_G(25V/div)
within fS range of 83-115kHz. From the waveforms of iLr_F, ZVS
uQ1(50V/div)
it can be found that DCM occurs when fS=83kHz and CCM uQ1(50V/div)
occurs when fS=100kHz and 115kHz. By observing Fig.
17(b), the complete sinusoidal waveform of iLr_F also means uS1(100V/div) uS1(100V/div)
100kHz is the main resonant frequency. Fig. 17(d) is tested iCr_B(20A/div)
at UH=200V, fS=100kHz, and Ro_L=25Ω (20% of full load, iCr_B(50A/div)
t(4μs/div) t(400ns/div)
100W). By observing uS1_G and uS1, it can be seen that ZVS (c) (d)
FIGURE 18. Experimental waveforms in backward mode.
can still be realized even under a very light load condition. (a) 83kHz, Ro_H=80Ω, (b) 100kHz, Ro_H=80Ω,
Meanwhile, the experimental waveforms in backward (c) 115kHz, Ro_H=80Ω, (d) 125kHz, Ro_H=400Ω.
mode are shown in Fig. 18. Each subfigure shows the
driving voltage of Q1, uQ1_G, drain-source voltage of Q1, uQ1, backward mode, when the output power is step changed
drain-source voltage of S1, uS1, and the current through Cr, between 250W and 500W (reflected in the change of the dc
iCr_B. The waveforms shown in Fig. 18(a), (b), and (c) are output current Io_H). With a constant UL of 45V, UH can be
all tested at Ro_H=80Ω, whereas UL are 45V, 50V, and 55V, also maintained at 200V. The stability of LLCL can be
respectively. When fS is set to 83kHz in Fig. 18(a), 100kHz confirmed by these waveforms.
UH(100V/div) UH(100V/div)
in Fig. 18(b), and 115kHz in Fig. 18(c), it can be seen from
US1 that different fS can hold UH at 200V in all three cases. UL(25V/div) UL(25V/div)
By observing iCr_B, it can be noticed that the converter is in 250W 500W 250W
200W 400W 200W
DCM in Fig. 18(a), and is in CCM in Fig. 18(b) and (c).
Also, the main resonant frequency of 100kHz can be seen
Io_L(5A/div) Io_H(1A/div)
by the sinusoidal waveform iCr_B in Fig. 18(b). Fig. 18(d) is
tested at UH=200V, fS=125kHz, and Ro_H=400Ω (20% of t(400ms/div) t(400ms/div)
(a) (b)
full load, 100W). uQ1_G and uQ1 indicate that LLCL can also FIGURE 19. Dynamic process waveforms.
achieve ZVS in backward mode over a wide load range. (a) Forward mode with output power step changed from 200W to 400W
Fig. 19(a) shows the dynamic process in forward mode, to 200W, UL=45V,
(b) Backward mode with output power step changed from 250W to 500W
when the output power is step changed between 200W and to 250W, UL=45V.
400W (reflected in the change of the dc output current Io_L).
It can be noticed that with a constant UH of 200V, UL can Finally, the measured efficiency curves of the prototype
be maintained at 45V by the output voltage closed loop based on the same UH (200V), different output power, and
control. Moreover, Fig. 19(b) shows the dynamic process in different UL are demonstrated in Fig. 20. Fig. 20(a) and (b)
show the efficiency results in forward and backward mode,
respectively. The highest efficiency point (96.58%) occurs
uS1_G(25V/div) uS1_G(25V/div)
in forward mode with UL=50V and 400W output power.
uS1(100V/div) uS1(100V/div)
Even with a very light output power (100W), since ZVS
uQ1(50V/div) uQ1(50V/div) can still be achieved, the converter also has the efficiency
greater than 91% in both power flow modes.
97 96
iLr_F iLr_F 96
Efficiency (%)

Efficiency (%)

(10A/div) (10A/div) 95
t(4μs/div) t(4μs/div) 95
(a) (b) 94
uS1_G(25V/div) 94
UL=45V 93 UL=45V
uS1_G(25V/div) 93
ZVS UL=50V 92 UL=50V
92 UL=55V UL=55V
uS1(100V/div) uS1(100V/div)
91100 200 300 400 500 91100 200 300 400 500
uQ1(50V/div)
uQ1(50V/div)
Output power (W) Output power (W)
(a) (b)
iLr_F(10A/div)
iLr_F FIGURE 20. Efficiency curves of LLCL converter. (a) Forward mode, (b)
(10A/div) Backward mode.
t(4μs/div) t(400ns/div)
(c) (d)
FIGURE 17. Experimental waveforms in forward mode. VI. CONCLUSIONS
(a) 83kHz, Ro_L=5Ω, (b) 100kHz, Ro_L=5Ω,
(c) 115kHz, Ro_L=5Ω, (d) 100kHz, Ro_L=25Ω. This paper proposes a bidirectional LLCL resonant dc-dc

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

converter. By employing a parallel-connected inductors Also, the currents through La (iLa_F(t) in forward mode,
structure into conventional LLC resonant tank, a bidirec- iLa_B(t) in backward mode), Lm (iLm_F(t) in forward mode,
tional LLC-type structure is thus obtained. As a result, the iLm_B(t) in backward mode), and Lr (iLr_F(t) in forward mode,
proposed LLCL converter harvests the excellent gain and iLr_B(t) in backward mode) of Bi-LLC can be shown as:
soft-switching features in bidirectional power flow applica-  kU L k U L
tions. In addition, the analysis of the LLCL resonant tank iLa_F (t ) = gQ R r t − 2gQ R
fully demonstrates that the parallel-connected inductors  F eq_L F eq_L

 kU H k U H
iLa_B (t ) = gQ R r t − 2 gQ R
structure in LLCL can effectively reduce the resonant tank
currents and the resonant capacitor voltage stress when  B eq_H B eq_H
compared with Bi-LLC and CLLC under the same working i (t ) = kU k  U
conditions. Stated thus, LLCL will have great potential to  Lm_F
L
r t − L

QF Req_L 2QF Req_L

reduce the power losses, reduce the resonant capacitor cost  kU H k U H
(A.3)
and promote the reliability. Based on battery applications in iLm_B (t ) = r t −
ESSs, a parameter design method considering the voltage  QB Req_H 2QB Req_H
gain range and the reduction of resonant tank currents is  4U L k U L
iLr_F (t ) = sin r t − cos r t
conducted. In the end, the experimental results based on a   Req_L 2 gQF Req_L
500-W prototype are displayed to verify the theoretical  4U H k U H
analyses. The maximum efficiency is 96.58%. In the future, iLr_B (t ) = sin r t − cos r t.
magnetic integration techniques for LLCL will be further   Req_H 2QB Req_H
studied, which will play a positive role in the magnetic Moreover, the resonant capacitor voltage expressions of
losses reduction and power density improvement. Bi-LLC (uCr_F(t) in forward mode, uCr_B(t) in backward
mode) can be given as:
APPENDIX  −k U L 8 gQF
For Bi-LLC converter shown in Fig. 2(a), when n=1, time uCr_F (t ) = 2g ( k 2 cos r t + sin r t )
domain expressions of the resonant tank input current  (A.4)
(iin_F(t) in forward mode, iin_B(t) in backward mode) and u (t ) = −k U H ( 8QB cos  t + sin  t ).
output current (iout_F(t) in forward mode, iout_B(t) in  Cr_B 2 k 2
r r

backward mode) are:

 4U L k U L REFERENCES
iin_F (t ) =  R sin r t − 2 gQ R cos r t [1] K.-Y. Lo, Y.-M. Chen, and Y.-R. Chang, “Bidirectional single-stage
grid-connected inverter for a battery energy storage system,” IEEE
 eq_L F eq_L

 kU L k U L Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 4581-4590, Jun. 2017.
 + r t − [2] V. Karthikeyan, and R. Gupta, “Distributed power flow control using
QF Req_L 2QF Req_L cascaded multilevel isolated bidirectional dc–dc converter with multi-

i (t ) = 4U H sin  t − k U H cos  t
phase shift modulation,” IET Power Electron., vol. 12, no. 11, pp.
2996-3003, 2019.
 in_B  Req_H
r
2QB Req_H
r
[3] J.-C. Wu, H.-L. Jou, and I.-H. Chiu, “Interleaved multi-level power

 kU H k U H converter for a battery energy storage system,” IET Power Electron.,
+ r t − vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 498-504, 2019.
 gQB Req_H 2gQB Req_H [4] Y.-E. Wu, and I.-C. Chen, “Novel integrated three-port bidirectional
 4U L k U L
(A.1) dc/dc converter for energy storage system,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp.
iout_F (t ) = sin r t − cos r t 104601–104612, 2019.
  Req_L 2 gQF Req_L [5] N. Elsayad, H. Moradisizkoohi, and O. Mohammed, “Design and
 kU L k U L
implementation of a new transformerless bidirectional dc–dc
 − r t + converter with wide conversion ratios,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
 gQF Req_L 2gQF Req_L vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 7067-7077, Sep. 2019.
 4U H k U H
[6] F. Xue, R. Yu, and A. Q. Huang, “A 98.3% efficient GaN isolated
iout_B (t ) = sin r t − cos r t bidirectional dc–dc converter for dc microgrid energy storage system
  Req_H 2QB Req_H applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 9094-
 kU H k U H
9103, Nov. 2017.
 − r t + . [7] O. Demirel, U. Arifoglu, and K. Kalayci, “Novel three-level T-type
 QB Req_H 2QB Req_H isolated bidirectional dc–dc converter,” IET Power Electron., vol. 12,
no. 1, pp. 61-71, 2019.
By means of (A.1), when t is equal to the half switching [8] S. Shao, H. Chen, X. Wu, J. Zhang, and K. Shen, “Circulating current
period TS/2, turn-off current of the inverter switch (ioff_F in and ZVS-on of a dual active bridge dc-dc converter: a review,” IEEE
Access, vol. 7, pp. 50561–50572, 2019.
forward mode, ioff_B in backward mode) of Bi-LLC can be [9] M. H. Kheraluwala, R. W. Gascoigne, D. M. Divan, and E. D.
calculated as: Baumann, “Performance characterization of a high-power dual active
 TS k U L ( g + 1) bridge dc-to-dc converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 28, no. 6, pp.
ioff_F = iin_F ( 2 ) = 2 gQ R 1294-1301, Nov./Dec. 1992.
 F eq_L [10] B. Zhao, Q. Song, W. Liu, and Y. Sun, “Overview of dual-active-
 TS k U H ( g + 1)
(A.2) bridge isolated bidirectional dc–dc converter for high-frequency-link
ioff_B = iin_B ( ) = . power-conversion system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no.
 2 2 gQB Req_H 8, pp. 4091-4106, Aug. 2014.

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
 This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007638, IEEE Access

[11] S. Shao, M. Jiang, W. Ye, Y. Li, J. Zhang, et al., “Optimal phase-shift [29] C. Zhang, P. Li, Z. Kan, X. Chai, and X. Guo, “Integrated half-bridge
control to minimize reactive power for a dual active bridge dc–dc CLLC bidirectional converter for energy storage systems,” IEEE
converter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 10193- Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 3879-3889, May 2018.
10205, Oct. 2019. [30] J.-Y. Lee, Y.-S. Jeong, and B.-M. Han, “An isolated dc/dc converter
[12] Z. Guo, D. Sha, and K. Song, “Output-series connected dual active using high-frequency unregulated LLC resonant converter for fuel cell
bridge converters for zero-voltage switching throughout full load applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 2926-
range by employing auxiliary LC networks,” IEEE Trans. Power 2934, Jul. 2011.
Electron., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 5549-5562, Jun. 2019. [31] Y. Chen, H. Wang, Z. Hu, Y.-F. Liu, X. Liu, et al., “LCLC converter
[13] Z. Guo, and D. Sha, “Dual-active-bridge converter with parallel- with optimal capacitor utilization for hold-up mode operation,” IEEE
connected full bridges in low-voltage side for ZVS by using auxiliary Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 2385-2396, Mar. 2019.
coupling inductor,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 66, no. 9, pp.
6856-6866, Sep. 2019.
[14] R. P. Twiname, D. J. Thrimawithana, U. K. Madawala, and C. A.
Baguley, “A new resonant bidirectional dc–dc converter topology,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 4733-4740, Sep.
2014.
[15] R. P. Twiname, D. J. Thrimawithana, U. K. Madawala, and C. A.
Baguley, “A dual-active bridge topology with a tuned CLC network,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 6543-6550, Dec.
2015.
[16] S. Hu, X. Li, and A. K. S. Bhat, “Operation of a bidirectional series-
resonant converter with minimized tank current and wide ZVS range,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 904-915, Jan. 2019.
[17] M. Yaqoob, K. H. Loo, and Y. M. Lai, “A four-degrees-of-freedom
modulation strategy for dual-active-bridge series-resonant converter
designed for total loss minimization,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 1065-1081, Feb. 2019.
[18] H. Gui, Z. Zhang, X. He, and Y. Liu, “A high voltage-gain LLC
micro-converter with high efficiency in wide input range for PV
applications,” in Proc. IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference
and Exposition (APEC), Fort Worth, TX, USA, 2014, pp. 637–642.
[19] D. Huang, F. C. Lee, and D. Fu, “Classification and selection
methodology for multi-element resonant converters,” in Proc. IEEE
Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), Fort
Worth, TX, USA, 2011, pp. 558–565.
[20] D. Huang, D. Fu, F. C. Lee, and P. Kong, “High-frequency high-
efficiency CLL resonant converters with synchronous rectifiers,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 3461-3470, Aug. 2011.
[21] T. Jiang, J. Zhang, X. Wu, K. Sheng, and Y. Wang, “A bidirectional
LLC resonant converter with automatic forward and backward mode
transition,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 757-770,
Feb. 2015.
[22] H. Wu, S. Ding, K. Sun, L. Zhang, Y. Li, et al., “Bidirectional soft-
switching series-resonant converter with simple PWM control and
load-independent voltage-gain characteristics for energy storage
system in dc microgrids,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron.,
vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 995-1007, Sep. 2017.
[23] H. Wu, K. Sun, Y. Li, and Y. Xing, “Fixed-frequency PWM-
controlled bidirectional current-fed soft-switching series-resonant
converter for energy storage applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 6190-6201, Aug. 2017.
[24] X. Tang, H. Wu, W. Hua, Z. Yu, and Y. Xing, “Three-port
bidirectional series-resonant converter with first-harmonic-
synchronized PWM,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron., to be
published. DOI: 10.1109/JESTPE.2020.2975164.
[25] J.-H. Jung, H.-S. Kim, M.-H. Ryu, and J.-W. Baek, “Design
methodology of bidirectional CLLC resonant converter for high-
frequency isolation of dc distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1741-1755, Apr. 2013.
[26] P. He, and A. Khaligh, “Comprehensive analyses and comparison of 1
kW isolated dc–dc converters for bidirectional EV charging systems,”
IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrification, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 147-156, Mar.
2017.
[27] B. Li, Q. Li, F. C. Lee, Z. Liu, and Y. Yang, “A high-efficiency high-
density wide-bandgap device-based bidirectional on-board charger,”
IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1627-
1636, Sep. 2018.
[28] X. Lu, and H. Wang, “A highly efficient multifunctional power
electronic interface for PEV hybrid energy management systems,”
IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 8964-8974, 2019.

VOLUME XX, 2017 9

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.