1124 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 35, NO.
5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1999
A Feedback Linearizing Control Scheme for a
PWM Converter–Inverter Having a
Very Small DC-Link Capacitor
Jinhwan Jung, Student Member, IEEE, Sunkyoung Lim, Student Member, IEEE, and Kwanghee Nam, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper addresses a control method of reducing
the size of the dc-link capacitors of a converter–inverter system.
The main idea is to utilize the inverter operation status in
the current control of the converter. Specifically, the infor-
mation on the load power is incorporated in synthesizing the
converter current control input so that a proper dc voltage
level is maintained. We describe the dynamics of load cur-
rent and apply feedback linearization theory to obtain an input
output linearized system. Theoretically, this control strategy is
effective in regulating the dc voltage level, even though the
dc-link capacitor is arbitrarily small and load varies abruptly.
The superior performance is demonstrated through simulation
and experiment. An experiment was performed with a 9-kW
pulsewidth modulation converter–vector inverter system having
a 75-F dc-link capacitor.
Index Terms— Converter–inverter system, feedback lineariza-
tion.
I. INTRODUCTION
M OST variable-speed drive systems use an ac/dc/ac
power conversion procedure. The dc-link in the middle
provides decoupling between converter and inverter, so that
they are driven independently. However, a large capacitance
is required for the dc link of voltage source inverters, and
electrolytic capacitors are used for this purpose. Capacitors,
however, are normally bulky and expensive. Moreover, in
the case of electrolytic capacitors, the capacitance decreases
gradually due to the outgassing. Hence, the dc-link capacitor
is the major lifetime-limiting factor of the inverter system.
In this paper, we consider a way of reducing the dc-link
capacitance as small as possible. As the dc-link capacitance is
reduced, the converter current response should be correspond-
ingly fast to counteract a possible dc-link voltage fluctuation
caused by a sudden change in the motor operation. This
problem has been studied by many researchers [1]–[5]. Mostly,
they utilized the methods of compensating the inverter power
Paper IPCSD 99–41, presented at the 1998 Industry Applications Society
Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO, October 12–16, and approved for publication
in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Industrial Power
Converter Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. Manuscript
released for publication March 18, 1999.
J. Jung was with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Pohang Uni-
versity of Science and Technology, Pohang 790-784, Korea. He is now with
the Machine Tool Engineering Department, Hyundai Precision and Industrial
Company, Ltd., Kyungki-Do 449-910, Korea.
S. Lim and K. Nam are with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang 790-784, Korea. (e-
mail: sklim@postech.ac.kr; kwnam@postech.ac.kr).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0093-9994(99)06517-2.
0093–9994/99$10.00  1999 IEEE
based on the measurement of the dc-link current at the inverter
side [2], [3]. However, it is not easy to install a current sensor
on the dc link, since there is a prior necessity to reduce the
stray inductance of the bus-bar system between capacitors and
insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBT’s). The current sensor
installation problem becomes more serious as the inverter
power rating becomes large. Instead of a dc-link current sensor,
Habetler [4] utilized a load current estimator. However, it has a
performance limit during the transient periods, since it involves
a low-pass filter.
With the advent of high-speed central processing unit (CPU)
and application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) technology,
the controllers of a pulsewidth modulation (PWM) converter
and a vector inverter can be implemented in a single CPU
board. We consider such control systems, in which current
controllers of the converter and inverter can communicate
quickly. It is not a problem whether the control board has
a single CPU or double CPU’s, as long as the converter
controller can utilize the inverter operation status in real time.
Kim et al. [5] proposed a fast dc-link voltage control algo-
rithm for the PWM converter–inverter system having a very
small dc-link capacitance. They utilized the motor state vari-
ables in constructing a converter current controller. However,
they utilized the assumption that the motor is in steady state.
However, in this paper, we obtain a complete description of the
dc-link voltage dynamics without assuming any steady-state
condition. In the description of the load current, the motor state
variables are utilized, such as voltage, current, electric angular
velocity, and current errors. We apply feedback linearization
technique [6] to the model and obtain an input–output lin-
earized system. By constructing a feedback control based on
the linearized model, we achieve a theoretically perfect dc-
link voltage regulator. The proposed scheme does not require
a dc-link current sensor, nor any extra additional sensor. The
feedback linearization technique has been applied to electric
servo drives [7], [8] and induction motor drives [9], [10].
Ulivi et al. [9] developed an alternative model of an induction
motor, which was a multivariable nonlinear system with four
electrical state variables and two inputs: stator voltages and
slip frequency. They also proposed the exact linearization
achieving the input–output decoupling of the closed-loop
system via static state feedback. Marino et al. [10] designed
a nonlinear adaptive state feedback input–output linearizing
control for a fifth-order model of an induction motor which
includes both electrical and mechanical dynamics.
JUNG et al.: A FEEDBACK LINEARIZING CONTROL SCHEME 1125

Fig. 1. Main circuit of PWM converter–inverter system.

The feedback linearization technique has been also applied axis of which is aligned to the source voltage, we obtain
to a PWM rectifier [11], [12]. The PWM rectifier has a
structural nonlinearity, since its differential equations contain (1)
a product of the dc-link voltage and its time derivative. Con-
ventional control algorithms avoid this problem by considering (2)
this slowly variable voltage as a constant in the equations.
Although this hypothesis does have the advantage of allowing where denote the source voltages, the
simple controls, it does not, however, allow high performance converter terminal voltages, the line currents, and the
regarding the speed of transient states. angular velocity of the source voltage. Note that the superscript
Hereafter, we illustrate the basics of the feedback lineariza- on the variables signifies the quantities in the synchronous
tion [6]. Consider a single-input single-output system reference frame.
Assume that the unity power factor is achieved through
making with a proportional plus integral (PI) regulator
and a coupling compensation term , where
denotes a PI controller. If we neglect the power stored
where are in the inductor, the current flowing from the source to the dc
smooth functions, and is a control input. link is equal to . Then, from Fig. 1, the voltage
The Lie derivative of with respect to vector is defined equations for the dc-link capacitor are given by
by . Similarly,
, and we let . (3)
We assume that , but . We define a
coordinate transformation map by (4)
Letting a new coordinate , we
obtain that where is the load current and is the voltage over the
dc-link capacitor . Note that is the unknown quantity.
In this paper, an underlined assumption is that the current
controllers of inverter and converter are built in such a way
that they communicate quickly. In this case, one can use
the information on the motor variables in determining the
If we choose , then it follows that converter current control input. Specifically, one can use the
motor variable in obtaining and .
We assume that an integral plus proportional (IP) controller
is used in the motor current control, as shown in Fig. 2. Note
that an IP controller is different in structure from a PI controller
in that the proportional gain does not lie in the forward
where , and is a path of the loop. There is an important reason for using an IP
new control input. The second equation is called zero dynam- controller in the motor control, and it will be shown later. Note
ics, and if is asymptotically that denote the stator current and voltage
stable at the origin with , the system is called minimum of the motor, and the proportional and integral gains
phase. of the IP current controller. Let be the current
errors of the IP controller of the motor, i.e.,
, where are the current commands.
II. CONVERTER DYNAMIC MODEL INCORPORATING Further, we define the motor variables as follows.
MOTOR VARIABLES denote the stator, rotor, magnetizing inductances,
The main circuit of the PWM converter–inverter system is the stator resistance, the electrical
shown in Fig. 1. In the synchronous reference frame, the angular velocity of the motor, and the rotor flux of the
1126 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 35, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1999

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. Motor current-control block diagram using IP controller.

(c)
motor. With the rotor flux orientation scheme, we let a
nonzero constant and ; thereby, it follows that
Fig. 3. Step-by-step procedure for the feedback linearization.
(5)
(6)

(7)

(8)

In the following theorem, we describe the dynamics of the Fig. 4. Control scheme for the linearized plant.
variables .
Theorem 1: Assume that the induction motor is controlled
based on the rotor flux orientation scheme and that the
stator currents are regulated by IP controllers. Choosing state
variable, input, and output as ,
and , we obtain from (3), (4), and
(5)–(8) that , and is a vector
of motor variables.
(9) Proof: Differentiating both sides of the real power
(10) , we obtain that

where

Applying (3) and (5)–(8), follows.

Remark: If a PI controller is used in the current control,
there is a need to differentiate , which is complex.
However, as is shown in (5) and (6), differentiation of
is not necessary in the case of the IP controller. This is
the reason for adopting the IP controller, instead of the PI
controller.

and
III. INPUT–OUTPUT LINEARIZATION AND
DC-LINK VOLTAGE CONTROL

A. Feedback Linearization
We apply feedback linearization technique to the nonlinear
model (9) and (10).
JUNG et al.: A FEEDBACK LINEARIZING CONTROL SCHEME 1127

Fig. 5. The nonlinear converter controller for a converter–inverter system.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6. Motor speed, inverter and converter currents, and dc-link voltage responses with C = 0
100 F to a step speed command ( 1800 to 1800 r/min).
(a) Only PI controller. (b) PI controller plus load current compensation. (c) Proposed nonlinear controller.

Theorem 2: With a coordinate change and a nonlinear feedback

(11)
1128 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 35, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1999

(12)

system (9) is transformed into the (input–output) linearized

system such that

(13)

(14)

where and is a new control input.

Remark 1: Note that the linearized system has a stable zero
dynamics. The zero dynamics of is described by

(15)

where denotes a nominal dc-link voltage. In obtaining

(15), we utilized . Since
, the dynamics of are asymptotically stable,
although it has other driving terms. Hence, we can say that
it has stable zero dynamics and that the linearized system is
minimum phase.
Remark 2: Note that the linearizing feedback (12) contains
. Hence, the crucial point in realizing the linearizing con-
troller is centered on the availability of , which is the time
derivative of the load current. In this approach, we obtain
with the use of the state variables of the motor. Normally, it is
completely neglected, even in the load current compensation
scheme. With a more complete description of the load current,
the input–output linearization is achieved. Specifically, with
the nonlinear coordinate transformation (11) and the nonlinear Fig. 7. Motor speed, inverter and converter currents, and dc-link voltage
feedback (12), the relationship between the dc-link voltage responses with C = 100 F when a step load is applied.
and the new input becomes linear.
Remark 3: It is an onerous task to derive the desired control In obtaining the second equation, we utilized (3). On the other
input (12). Note that the identity was hand, we calculate the same node value from the right-hand
used in obtaining and . side, such that
Proof: We may prove this mathematically. However,
for a better illustration, we prove this graphically, step by (17)
step. Note that system (9) with input (12) can be drawn as
Fig. 3(a). Note that source voltage is cancelled by the
Equating (16) and (17), and utilizing , we obtain that
term in (12). The -axis current is expressed by
, as shown in Fig. 3(c).
. Then, Fig. 3(a) simplifies to Fig. 3(b).
The value of node in Fig. 3(b) can be calculated from the
B. Nonlinear Controller for Constant DC-Link Voltage
left-hand side, such that
We construct a controller based on the linearized model (13).
Note from and (13) and (14) that the
dc-link voltage is not affected by the load current, although
the dc-link voltage affects the load current. The dc-link voltage
is described by an isolated second-order linear system. As a
method for keeping constant, we use two PI controllers,
(16) as shown in Fig. 4. The internal and external loops look after
current and voltage controllers of the existing PWM converter.
JUNG et al.: A FEEDBACK LINEARIZING CONTROL SCHEME 1129

Fig. 8. Experimental setup.

(a) (b) (c)

=
Fig. 9. Motor speed, inverter and converter currents, and dc-link voltage responses with C 6
150 F to a step speed command change ( 1500 r/min).
(a) Only PI controller. (b) PI controller plus load current compensation. (c) Proposed nonlinear controller.

Then, the final nonlinear control input is determined by IV. SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

A. Simulation Result
Simulation was performed under the following environ-
ments: motor power rating kW (four pole),
, mH, mH,
mH, source voltage (line to line),
and it is depicted in detail in Fig. 5. The information on the mH, F, and V. Fig. 6 shows the
motor drive is transferred to the converter controller to realize responses of motor speed, inverter current, converter current,
the proposed control. and dc-link voltage when a step speed command (
1130 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 35, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1999

(a)

(a)

(b)

(c)

=
Fig. 10. DC-link voltage response with C 75 F to a step speed command
6
change ( 1200 r/min). (a) Only PI controller. (b) PI controller plus load
current compensation. (c) Proposed nonlinear controller.

r/min) is applied to the motor running at r/min (b)

under no-load condition. During the speed transient period, the
maximum inverter -axis current flows. For the first period, the
motor speed decreases to zero. However, since the motor was
running in the negative direction, the regenerative power flows
into the dc link, making -axis converter current negative.
After the motor direction has been changed, the power flows
into the dc link with a positive -axis converter current. At the
points of sudden change in converter -axis current, dc-link
voltage fluctuates with the existing control schemes. Fig. 6(a)
and (b) shows the results with only a PI controller and with
a PI controller plus load current compensation, respectively.
However, with the proposed nonlinear controller, the dc link
does not change at all, even with a small capacitance (
F) [Fig. 6(c)]. Fig. 7 shows the speed, currents, and
voltage responses when a step load torque (30 N m) is applied
to the motor running at 1800 r/min. No dc-link voltage
fluctuation is observed, even under this circumstance.
B. Experimental Result
Fig. 8 shows the control block diagram of the experiment. A
single 32-b processor (TMS320C31) was used for controlling
both converter and inverter. We used a motor, the parameters
of which are the same as the ones listed in the simulation part.
Further, we chose it such that mH, dc-link voltage
V, and F, F. The deadtime interval was
set to be 5 s, and the PWM frequency was 4 kHz. The PWM
signals were generated by two erasable programmable logic
devices (EPLD’s) for converter and inverter.
Fig. 9 shows motor speed, inverter and converter current,
and dc-link voltage responses to a step speed command change
( 1500 r/min) when dc-link capacitance is F. In
this experiment, the power variation in the inverter system
was about 5 kW. Fig. 9(a) and (b) shows the cases with
Fig. 11. (a) Inverter and converter phase current when motor speed changes
0
from 1200 to 1200 r/min. (b) Source phase voltage and current under the
same condition.
only a PI controller and with a PI controller plus load current
compensation, respectively, while Fig. 9(c) shows the case
with the proposed nonlinear controller. Note from Fig. 9 that
the proposed nonlinear controller shows the best dynamic
performance in regulating the dc-link voltage.
Fig. 10 also shows dc-link voltage responses to a step speed
command change ( 1200 r/min) when the dc-link capacitance
is reduced further to F. In this experiment, the
power variation is about 4 kW. Fig. 10(a) and (b) shows
the cases with only a PI controller and with a PI controller
plus load current compensation, respectively, while Fig. 10(c)
shows the case with the proposed nonlinear controller. The
conventional method that utilizes only a PI controller results
in the severe fluctuation and fails to hold the dc-link voltage
during the period of speed change. The PI controller plus load
current compensation [Fig. 9(b)] also exhibits the fluctuation,
but recovers the dc-link voltage after a short while. The pro-
posed nonlinear controller [Fig. 9(c)] shows an almost perfect
performance in regulating the dc-link voltage. Fig. 10 suggests
that, with the proposed control scheme, the dc-link capacitance
can be reduced to less than 100 F for a 5-kW inverter.
Fig. 11 shows the phase current responses of inverter
and converter under the same experimental condition as in
Fig. 10(c). Fig. 11(a) shows a motor phase current response
and a source (converter phase) current response to a step
speed command (1200 r/min) when the motor is running at
1200 r/min. Fig. 11(b) shows the source voltage and source
current responses, from which one can check that unity power
factor is preserved.
JUNG et al.: A FEEDBACK LINEARIZING CONTROL SCHEME
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
By utilizing the inverter information in the current control
of a converter, we can regulate the dc-link voltage effectively.
Conceptually, the use of load prediction in the converter con-
trol is helpful in regulating the dc-link voltage having a very
small dc-link capacitor. The proposed scheme was derived by
applying feedback linearization theory to the dynamic model
which contained a complete description of the load current.
Another key technique was the use of an IP controller in
the motor current control to circumvent the differentiation of
current commands. From a theoretical viewpoint, it is possible
to regulate dc-link voltage perfectly. The experimental results
supported the good performance of the proposed scheme. With
the proposed method, one can reduce the dc-link capacitance
drastically, which is very desirable in reducing the size and
cost of an inverter, or one can replace the large aluminum
electrolytic capacitor bank with a polypropylene film capacitor,
enhancing the lifetime and the reliability of inverter.
REFERENCES
[1] J. W. Dixon, A. B. Kulkarni, M. Nishimoto, and B. Ooi, “Characteristics
of a controlled-current PWM rectifier-inverter link,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Applicat., vol. IA-23, pp. 1022–1028, Nov./Dec. 1987.
[2] L. M. Malesani, L. Rossetto, and P. Tomasin, “AC/DC/AC PWM
converter with reduced energy storage in the DC link,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Applicat., vol. 31, pp. 287–292, Mar./Apr. 1995.
[3] R. Wu, S. B. Dewan, and G. R. Slemon, “Analysis of a PWM ac to dc
voltage source converter under the predicted current control with a fixed
switching frequency,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 27, pp. 756–764,
July/Aug. 1991.
[4] T. G. Habetler, “A space vector-based rectifier regulator for AC/DC/AC
converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 8, pp. 30–36, Jan. 1993.
[5] J. S. Kim and S. K. Sul, “New control scheme for ac-dc-ac converter
without dc link electrolytic capacitor,” in Proc. IEEE PESC’93, 1993,
pp. 300–306.
[6] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems, Communications and Control
Engineering Series, 3rd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1995.
[7] B. Grčar, P. Cafuta, and M. Žnidarič, “Practical robust stabilization
of PMAC servo drive based on continuous variable structure control,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, vol. 11, pp. 708–714, Dec. 1996.
[8] B. Grčar, P. Cafuta, M. Žnidarič, and F. Gausch, “Nonlinear control of
synchronous servo drive,” IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 4, pp.
177–184, Mar. 1996.
[9] G. Ulivi and A. De Luca, “Design of an exact nonlinear controller for
induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, pp. 1304–1307,
Dec. 1989.
[10] R. Marino, S. Peresada, and P. Valigi, “Adaptive input-output linearizing
control of induction motors,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 38, pp.
208–221, Feb. 1993.
1131
[11] P. Rioual and H. Pouliquen, “Non linear control of PWM rectifier by
state feedback linearization and exact PWM control,” in Proc. IEEE
PESC’94, 1994, pp. 1095–1102.
[12] D. Lee, K. Lee, and G. Lee, “Voltage control of PWM converter using
feedback linearization,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS Annu. Meeting, 1998,
pp. 1491–1496.
Jinhwan Jung (S’96) was born in Seoul, Korea,
in 1972. He received the B.S. degree from Pusan
National University, Pusan, Korea, and the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees from Pohang University of Science
and Technology, Pohang, Korea, in 1994, 1996,
and 1999, respectively, all in electrical engineer-
ing.
He is currently a Senior Research Engineer with
the Machine Tool Engineering Department, Hyundai
Precision and Industrial Company, Ltd., Kyungki-
Do, Korea. His main interests are ac motor control
for high-speed operation and power converter/inverter systems.
Sunkyoung Lim (S’96) was born in Korea in 1974.
He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical
engineering in 1996 and 1998, respectively, from
Pohang University of Science and Technology, Po-
hang, Korea, where he is currently working toward
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering.
His main interests are nonlinear control theory
and three-level converter/inverter systems.
Kwanghee Nam (S’83-M’86) was born in Seoul,
Korea, in 1956. He received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees in chemical technology and control and
instrumentation engineering from Seoul National
University, Seoul, Korea, in 1980 and 1982, re-
spectively, and the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in
mathematics and electrical engineering from the
University of Texas, Austin, in 1986.
He is currently a Professor in the Department
of Electrical Engineering, Pohang University of
Science and Technology, Pohang, Korea, where he
serves as Academic Dean of the Information Graduate School and Director of
the Information Research Laboratory. His main interests are ac motor control,
high-power drives, power converters, and nonlinear systems analysis.