See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367022417

Overview and Comparative Analysis of Bidirectional Cascaded Modular

Isolated Medium-Voltage AC -Low-Voltage DC (MVAC-LVDC) Power
Conversion for Renewable Energy Rich Microgrids

Article in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · March 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.113118

CITATIONS READS

3 129

2 authors:

Jaydeep Saha Sanjib Kuamr Panda

National University of Singapore National University of Singapore
47 PUBLICATIONS 251 CITATIONS 529 PUBLICATIONS 10,653 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intelligent Power Management System for Electric Propulsion based Marine Vessels for improving Reliability, Operational cost, Performance and Efficiency (ROPE) View
project

Condition monitoring and fault detection of rotating induction machines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaydeep Saha on 11 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Overview and Comparative Analysis of Bidirectional Cascaded Modular
Isolated Medium-Voltage AC - Low-Voltage DC (MVAC-LVDC) Power
Conversion for Renewable Energy Rich Microgrids

Jaydeep Sahaa,∗, Sanjib Kumar Pandaa

a Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore 119077

Abstract
As power-electronics is playing a major role in modernization of the existing electrical grid towards renewable
energy rich smart grid, isolated medium-voltage AC - low-voltage DC (MVAC-LVDC) power conversion has
gained popularity for grid-connected applications. In this paper, an initial discussion is provided on existing
solutions related to grid-connected MVAC-LVDC conversion, which briefly describes the shortcomings of
the line-frequency-transformer (LFT) based conversion solutions and then discusses the various categories of
isolated power-electronic conversion solutions based on modularity. A qualitative comparison of the isolated
power-electronics based conversion solutions reveals the obvious merits of the cascaded modular conversion
strategy over the modular multilevel, semi-modular and single-cell conversion strategies. Subsequently,
comprehensive descriptions for each of the available single-phase isolated AC-DC conversion submodules in
the literature are provided, along with pertinent illustrations of circuit diagrams and important electrical
quantities’ wave-shapes. Finally, a quantitative comparative evaluation of a 22 kV grid-connected 1 MVA
power-rated MVAC-LVDC isolated converter’s three-phase submodule possibilities along with comparable
LFT based MVAC-LVDC solution is presented, while considering the criteria of efficiency (η), power density
(ρ), cost (σ), failure rate (λ), number of components (N oC) and control complexity (C.C.). This multi-
criteria comparative evaluation demonstrates the merits of single-stage isolated AC-DC submodules over the
conventional two-stage isolated AC-DC submodules, and reveals that the direct matrix-based dual-active-
bridge (MB-DAB) type submodule is the most pertinent power conversion topology for cascaded modular
isolated MVAC-LVDC power conversion application.
Word Count: 9500 approx.
Keywords: Cascaded modular converter, Power conversion, Renewable Energy, Single-stage, Utility-grid
interface

1. Introduction

Though the fossil-fuel based unidirectional power system concept has proven to be extremely robust and
has survived for more than a century, this conventional power system concept has been criticized for being
environmentally unsustainable, uneconomical, inefficient, inflexible and so on [1]. The concept of smart
5 grid with distributed generation (DG) has emerged to be one of the most discussed topics of this century
which promises to curb the issues of the conventional power system architecture and provide benefits in
terms of increased efficiency, enhanced reliability, advanced energy management, reduced capital investment
for power system infrastructure and facilitating easier integration of renewable energy sources [1, 2, 3]. In
this modern paradigm, the distributed energy resources (DERs) and associated loads can be considered

∗ Corresponding author. Electrical Machines and Drives Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,

National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore 119077.

Email address: jaydeepsaha@u.nus.edu (Jaydeep Saha)

Preprint submitted to Elsevier RSER January 11, 2023

 Figure 1: Generalized schematic of a renewable energy rich hybrid AC/DC microgrid.

10 as small power systems which are termed as microgrids. The customers are no longer solely consumers of
energy but can also be producers, giving them a new entitlement of being prosumers, and thus, making
the flow of power and information in the modern power system to be conceptually bidirectional [4]. Power-
electronics technology is assuming a pivotal role in the distribution system architecture of the modern smart
grid, where the distributed sources and loads are connected through power converters. The applications of
15 power-electronics in the revamped grid consist of interfaces for intermittent renewable energy sources (RESs)
such as solar photo-voltaic (PV) and wind with the utility-grid, grid integration of battery energy storage
systems (BESS), interfaces for electric vehicles (EVs) which are available for both unidirectional charging
and bidirectional vehicle-to-grid (V2G) applications, etc. [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 137].
In the modern scenario of power distribution, each microgrid can be visualized as a cluster of renewable
20 energy based DERs, distributed energy storage (DES) and loads. The power range of a typical microgrid may
vary from few hundreds of kW to few MW, and thus, grid-connected microgrids are usually interfaced with a
MVAC utility-grid. In the evolving paradigm of the smart grid, each microgrid is expected to get connected
to the MV utility-grid through a controlled power management junction, also known as the Energy Control
Center (ECC) [11]. Active power (VA or W) flow control, reactive power (VAR) compensation, harmonic
25 compensation, facilitating information sharing between microgrids, migrogrid islanding operation, control
and regulation of DC bus to integrate DERs and DES are some of the typical basic functionalities that ECC s
are expected to have. The modern microgrids are predominantly of the hybrid AC/DC type to eliminate
unnecessary power conversions [12, 13, 14], and are preferred to have architectures that not only facilitate
DES and DER integration, but also offer enough flexibility to remove the AC microgrid in the future, if
30 required [15]. For such a hybrid microgrid (a low-voltage/LV network), an ECC capable of galvanically
isolated bidirectional medium-voltage AC - low-voltage DC (MVAC-LVDC) conversion is required at the
MVAC grid interconnection as depicted in Fig. 1. If the microgrid structure in Fig. 1 is slightly modified
to remove the loads, it would depict a cluster of renewable energy based DERs and DES, which would still
require a similar isolated MVAC-LVDC conversion requirement (having similar functionality requirements
35 as an ECC ) for interconnection with the MVAC utility-grid [120, 121, 122].
Remaining part of the paper is structurally organised as follows. Section 2 discusses the conventional line-
frequency-transformer (LFT) based and isolated power-electronic converter based grid-connected MVAC-
LVDC conversion strategies, which reveal the superiority of cascaded modular isolated power-electronic
conversion for ECC application. Section 3 presents the various cascaded modular submodule topologies

2
40 presented in recent literature. Section 4 illustrates a model based multi-criteria comparative evaluation of
the cascaded modular submodules. Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper.

2. Grid-connected MVAC-LVDC conversion

2.1. Conventional LFT based conversion
In today’s unidirectional power system, where the power flows unidirectionally through the distribution
45 network feeders, traditional line-frequency transformers (LFTs) have have served as a robust solution for
voltage step-up/step-down and for providing electrical isolation between two adjacent/coupled networks [16].
Most of these distribution transformers are accoutred with a mechanism of on-load tap changers (OLTCs) for
voltage regulation, and thus termed as OLTC LFTs, and controlled using the line drop compensation (LDC)
methodology which operates with the assumption of unidirectional power flow. This LDC methodology
50 proves to be ineffective when the DER production is more than the load demand and reverse power flow
occurs through the feeder. Some improved algorithms have been proposed for voltage control like the
Automatic Compensation Voltage Control (ACVC) mechanism in [17]. This might improve the reverse
power flow situation and lead to a better utilization of DER but not 100% utilization. 100% DER utilization
demands for rearrangement of the substation. Hence, the OLTC LFT cannot meet some of the fundamental
55 expectations of an ECC.
There have been many efforts to enhance the features of LFT by integrating power-electronics on the load
side of the LFT. Some of the efforts were dedicated to build a Transformer Rectifier Unit (TRU), consisting of
a passive three-phase diode bridge rectifier on the LFT’s load side to facilitate DC load operation [18, 19, 20].
However, DER and DES integration is still limited while using a TRU, and thus not preferred for the ECC
60 of a microgrid. Further research has been carried out to reinforce the LFT with an active rectifier-inverter
unit consisting of a DC-link, together referred to as Modular Transformer Converter (MTC) or Transformer
Converter Unit (TCU) [21]. Such TCUs can be built by using various combination of three-phase Active-
Front-End (AFE) rectifiers and Active-Back-End (ABE) inverters as suitable for a given set of specifications
[22, 23]. Though TCUs can fulfill most of the expectations for an ECC if suitable control is implemented,
65 it is often criticized for the bulky LFT which drastically reduces the power density of the unit.

2.2. Isolated power-electronic conversion

Solid-State-Transformers (SSTs) can be realized as a medium-frequency (MF) or high-frequency (HF)
galvanic isolation aided power-electronic converter, which can interconnect a LV network, such as a microgrid,
to a MVAC grid [24, 25, 26, 27, 50]. SSTs, having power-electronics on the front-end (FE) and back-end
70 (BE) sides, facilitate isolating transformer operation at MF, thus reducing its volume and in turn improving
power density. MVAC-LVDC power conversion is a critical part of a grid-interfacing power conversion,
mainly because of the requirement to integrate intermittent DER and DES in the modern power system
paradigm. Thus an intermediate DC bus is required as a part of a SST architecture as well to facilitate this
fundamental ECC functionality. Additionally, an intermediate DC bus functions as an energy buffer and
75 restricts the propagation of ripples/disturbances from LV (microgrid) to MV (utility grid) side and vice-
versa. More importantly, recent studies have revealed that such isolated grid-connected power-electronic
conversion strategies are economically justifiable only if it involves MVAC-LVDC conversion [28, 29]. Hence,
AC-AC topologies are not studied any further in this paper due to its limited flexibility and functionality for
modern grid-connected applications [30, 31, 32]. The isolated MVAC-LVDC architectures are sub-divided
80 into three categories depending on the amount of modularity as:
(1) Single-Cell: The single-cell approach is a completely non-modular conversion strategy which processes
the entire power. In order to facilitate MV grid-connected high-power power conversion in the kHz range
(for a reasonable filter size), high-voltage WBG semiconductor devices are required [33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38].
These high-voltage WBG semiconductor devices are still being researched upon and have not been
85 commercialized yet, and thus not standardized. Such an approach also involves one medium frequency
transformer (MFT) operating at MV which has to process the entire power [39, 40]. High power MFTs
in the 100 kW range have been developed, but still there are challenges in this technology with respect
to parasitics and thermal management [40, 41, 42].
3
Figure 2: Topology of a semi-modular MVAC-LVDC conversion stage with MVAC-MFAC phase-modular architecture.

4
Figure 3: (a) MMC type power-electronic transformer (PET) with non-unified LVDC bus, (b) MVAC-LVDC conversion archi-
tecture consisting of MVAC-MFAC MMC at the primary side of MFT.

5
 Figure 4: Cascaded-modular MVAC-LVDC conversion architectures: (a) Isolated Back-end (IBE) type conversion which is
essentially a two-stage approach, and, (b) Isolated Front-end (IFE) type conversion which may be single-stage or two-stage.

(2) Semi-Modular: The semi-modular conversion concept is presented for unidirectional power flow in [43]
90 and reviewed as a bidirectional variant in [44], as shown in Fig. 2. The Line-Frequency AC (LFAC) -
Medium-Frequency AC (MFAC) segment of the converter is phase modular. Though MV semiconductor
devices are required for this MVAC-MFAC phase-modular conversion, the power processed by each phase
module and each MFT is one-third of the total power transfer. However, note-worthily the MFAC-DC
converter on the BE-end side requires to necessarily process 100% power through it and thus has strict
95 requirements for the constituting semiconductor devices. There is also an additional provision for
arranging the LFAC-MFAC phase modules in star (Y) or delta (∆) configuration at the grid side to
widen the FE side voltage range. If one of the LFAC-MFAC phase modules gets faulty, the converter
can be operated with derated power transfer until the faulty phase module is replaced. However, there
is no such flexibility in case the MFAC-DC converter experiences a fault scenario.
100 (3) Modular: This category has a fully modular architecture and is further sub-divided as modular-multilevel
based and cascaded-modular type MVAC-LVDC conversion, as discussed below.
The modular multilevel converter (MMC) can be used as a multi-level inverter topology and its each
cell can be modified to include a galvanically isolated Dual-Active-Bridge (DAB) stage to result in a
MMC type power-electronic transformer (PET), as shown in Fig. 3(a) [27, 45, 46, 47]. In this approach,
105 the completely modular topology provides enough flexibility for maintenance as well as scalability, and
facilitates use of standardized MV lower-power WBG semiconductor devices and MFTs in kW range.
However, there is lack of an unified LVDC bus in this topology, voltage balance issues, circulating
current, etc. which pose significant control challenges for such a topology [48, 49], and once installed
there is a lack of flexibility to switch between star (Y) and delta (∆) configurations. Alternatively, the
110 classical MMC can be modified to be used for MVAC-MFAC conversion, as shown in Fig. 3(b) followed
by a MFT and a H-bridge for MFAC-LVDC conversion [50, 51, 52]. This strategy of modular-multilevel
based MVAC-LVDC conversion is more popular due to single-stage conversion capability, flexibility to
switch in-between star (Y) and delta (∆) configurations, enough flexibility for maintenance and use
of standardised low-voltage low-power state-of-the-art WBG semiconductor devices for MVAC-MFAC
115 conversion application. However, there are few challenges in terms of high-power MFT fabrication and
high-power processing by the MFAC-LVDC H-bridge.
The cascaded-modular type MVAC-LVDC conversion architecture consists of cells or submodules con-
nected in an input-series-output-parallel (ISOP) configuration. This type of modular architecture can
be further sub-divided based on the position of isolation stage in the architecture as: Isolated back-
120 end (IBE) and Isolated Front-end (IFE). The IBE architecture, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a) essentially
6
Table 1: A brief summarization of the salient features, major advantages and major disadvantages of the possible MVAC-LVDC
conversion topologies (broadly classified on the basis of degree of architectural modularity)
Topology Salient Features
Single-Cell (i) Completely non-modular
and processes entire power
(ii) High-voltage high-power
semiconductor devices
Semi- (i) MVAC-MFAC phase-
Modular modular conversion at
front-end
(i) Some power sharing but
almost similar device count
compared to single-cell
Modular
(i) Modular- (i) Fully modular: MVAC-
Multilevel MVDC or MVAC-LVDC
(ii) lower-voltage, lower-
power devices and MFT
(ii) Cascaded- (i) Fully modular for entire
Modular MVAC-LVDC conversion
(ii) Follows an ISOP
connection of submodules
(iii) lower-voltage, lower-
power devices and MFT
Advantages
(i) Low component count
(ii) Simpler control structure
(iii) No power-routing
imbalance issue
(i) AC-MFAC phase modules
in star (Y) or delta (∆) to
increase FE voltage range
(ii) Derated operation possible
during the scenario of fault in
one phase-module
(i) Use of standardized MV
WBG semiconductor devices
and MFTs in kW range
(ii) Enough flexibility for
maintenance & scalability
(iii) Smaller grid-side filter
(i) Use of standardized MV
WBG semiconductor devices
and MFTs in kW range
(ii) Complete flexibility for
maintenance & scalability
(iii) Smaller grid-side filter
(iv) PFC, harmonic-filtering
(v) Complete soft switching
(vi) Star (Y) - delta (∆)
connection flexibility
7
Disadvantages
(i) High-voltage and high-power
WBG device and MFT
(ii) Incomplete soft-switching
(iii) High voltage step-down
(iv) No maintenance flexibility
leading to expensive downtimes
(v) Poor power density
(i) High-voltage high-power
WBG devices and MFT
(ii) constrained scalability &
maintenance flexibility
(iii) Challenging to achieve full
soft-switching
(i) Voltage imbalance between
cells, voltage ripple, circulating
current, etc.
(ii) Limited flexibility to switch
inbetween star (Y) or delta (∆)
(iii) High no. of devices & drivers
(i) Voltage and/or power balance
issues due to non-idealities and
parameter mismatch
(ii) High no. of devices & drivers
(iii) Trade-off between power-
density enhancement through
ripple transfer and reactive
power compensation
 consists of two-stage AC-DC converter submodules [39, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58]. The front-end is a
cascaded H-bridge (CHB) multilevel converter which assumes the role of an active front-end rectifier
(AFER), with the main functionalities as: (i) MVAC-MVDC conversion, (ii) grid-side reactive power
control and power factor correction, and (iii) current shaping to maintain minimum total harmonic
125 distortion (THD). The second stage contributes by (i) providing MVDC-LVDC conversion involving
medium-frequency isolation, (ii) regulating the LVDC voltage, and (iii) controlling the power flow. The
major advantages of this topology include the scalability of this architecture to high-voltage and high-
power levels while using the state-of-the-art WBG semiconductor devices, enhanced repairability and
flexibility for maintenance, services such as front-end power factor correction (PFC) and harmonics
130 filtering, flexibility to switch in-between star (Y) and delta (∆) configurations and easy soft-switching
capabilities for all devices of the DC-DC isolation stage due to fixed DC voltage on either sides. The
major disadvantages of the IBE MVAC-LVDC topology are increased losses due to two-stage conversion
with hard-switching of the devices in first stage, lower power density due to an intermediate fixed MVDC
and associated capacitive filter, prevalent voltage and power balance issues due to non-idealities and
135 parameter mismatch. Contrarily, the IFE cascaded modular type topology is shown in Fig. 4(b), whose
submodule needs to have a matrix-based AC-MFAC converter at the front-end. The submodules may
either be a single-stage front-end matrix-based AC-DC converter [59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67], or a
two-stage converter consisting of a front-end matrix-based autonomous AC-|AC| isolation stage (aIFE)
followed by an |AC|-DC PFC boost converter stage [51, 68, 69, 70]. The major advantages of the IFE
140 type MVAC-LVDC architecture include superior flexibility and repairability due to full modularity, lower
switching losses, lower voltage stress, soft switching of active devices, flexibility to switch in-between
star (Y) and delta (∆) configurations, superior power density due to second harmonic ripple transfer
leading to ripple cancellation and elimination of electrolytic capacitive filtering (unlike IBE architecture)
and reduced number of control loops. The disadvantages include power imbalance between submodules
145 due to parameter mismatch, need to optimize RMS and peak currents in order to restrict power losses
and inability to provide reactive power compensation.
Table 1 summarizes the various salient features, prominent merits and demerits of the MVAC-LVDC
topologies discussed in this section. It can be observed that the conversion topologies with fully modular
MVAC-LVDC stage is superior compared to the semi-modular and single-cell approaches, with the IFE
150 based cascaded modular MVAC-LVDC topology emerging as the most meritorious topology. An in-depth
discussion and comparative study of the cascaded modular submodules for MVAC-LVDC conversion are
presented in Section 3 and Section 4.

3. Cascaded modular AC-DC submodules

The various isolated single-phase AC-DC submodule topologies presented in literature for cascaded
155 modular MVAC-LVDC conversion are discussed as follows.
(1) Conventional two-stage (IBE type): The conventional two-stage AC-DC submodule is presented via
Fig. 5(a), along with the relevant voltage and current wave-shapes in Fig. 5(b,c,d). The first stage
is an AFER, followed by an electrolytic capacitor for filtering out the second line-frequency harmonic
ripple to form a stiff (negligible ripple content) DC link - this operation can be observed via Fig.
160 5(b,c). The succeeding stage is the DC-DC converter stage with MFAC isolation that is primarily
responsible for controlling the power transfer between the AC and DC sides. The DC-DC converter
stage is either an unregulated series-resonant converter (SRC) [53, 71, 72, 73, 74], or a DC-DC DAB
[33, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81]. For bidirectional resonant DC-DC conversion, CLLC type converter is
employed [123, 124], which is a symmetrical version of the widely used unidirectional LLC resonant
165 DC-DC converter [125]. However, such CLLC DC-DC converters suffer from low efficiency at light-load
conditions [123, 124], complicated component selection of resonant tank due to varying voltage gain-vs-
frequency trend [123] and high voltage stress withstanding requirement for the resonant capacitors [126].
Addition of an auxiliary transformer is proposed in [127] to improve the efficiency and voltage gain-vs-
frequency trend, but it leads to further complicated converter design and deteriorates power density. On
8
Figure 5: (a) The two-stage AC-DC submodule and (b) sinusoidal AC side voltage and current, (c) stiff DC voltage and currents
before and after filtering second harmonic component, (d) DC voltage and current; (e) An IMC based AC-DC submodule and
(f) sinusoidal AC side voltage and current, (g) current observed proportional to voltage at the FE of DAB, (h) DC voltage
with filtered and unfiltered DC currents.

9
 Figure 6: (a) IFE or or S3 T type submodule (b) AC side current and voltage waveforms (c) chopped-voltage and relevant
current waveforms at primary side of MFT (d) the boost-converter control’s current-shaping operation (i2 ∝v2 ).

170 the other hand, the DAB approach can actively regulate the power transfer at the required level, thus
providing a regulated DC voltage with low harmonic content (leading to a smaller filter capacitor). The
AFER is usually modulated through a sinusoidal pulse-width modulation (SPWM) scheme, whereas
the DC-DC converter operates using the SRC modulation schemes, or single phase-shift (SPS) control
/ dual phase-shift (DPS) control / triple phase-shift (TPS) control modulation schemes in case of a
175 DC-DC DAB. In this approach, the DC-DC converter perceives constant voltage on either sides and
thus ZVS soft-switching becomes quite straight-forward if state-of-the-art MOSFET devices are used.
When connected in ISOP configuration, this submodules form the IBE type MVAC-LVDC conversion
stage or the MVAC-LVDC stage of the well-known CMSST topology [51, 57, 58].
(2) Front-end Indirect-Matrix (FE-IM) based: The front-end indirect-matrix based topology, as presented
180 in Fig. 5(e), is structurally closer to the two-stage conventional topology, except from the fact that
there is no intermediate stiff DC link. The electrolytic capacitor (bulky and unreliable) is replaced by
a film capacitor to filter only the switching frequency harmonics and allow complete transfer of the
second harmonic ripple to the DC side where it gets filtered. At the MFT’s primary/FE side, the two
consecutive H-bridges (with switches Sr x and S1x respectively, x∈{1, 2, 3, 4}) constitute an indirect-
185 matrix converter (IMC) because it effectively performs AC-HFAC conversion bereft of a intermediate
energy buffer. A well established modulation scheme for this topology is presented by J. Everts et al. in
[59, 60], where the AFER switches just two times in a cycle to fold the AC to |AC| followed by a DC-DC
DAB. The front-end bridge of the DC-DC DAB (i.e. with switches S1x , x∈{1, 2, 3, 4}) is controlled such
that the current i1 is shaped proportional to the folded |AC| voltage, V1 . This ensures a sinusoidal AC
190 current, iac , proportional to vac , leading to a good AC side power quality. The discussed wave-shapes
can be observed through Fig. 5(f,g,h) which display the submodule’s operation. The submodule is
thus operated similar to a single-stage single-phase AC-DC DAB converter with a FE IMC converting
AC-HFAC in the MFT’s primary side and HFAC-DC conversion takes place in the MFT’s secondary
side. When connected in an ISOP configuration, the FE-IM based forms a similar architecture like the
195 CMSST, but without an intermediate stiff MVDC due to the absence of a capacitive filter after the
AFER in each submodule.
(3) Isolated Front-end (IFE) or Swiss-SST (S3 T) type: Observing Fig. 6(a), the IFE or S3 T submodule
consists of a FE folding (AC-|AC|) stage with isolation a back-end (BE) side PFC boost converter
(|AC|-DC) stage [51, 68, 69, 70]. The AC-|AC| autonomous isolated front-end (aIFE) stage is operated
200 similar to a SRC in half-cycle discontinuous-conduction-mode (HC-DCM). This AC-|AC| aIFE stage
10
 Table 2: Possible AC-DC Dual-Active-Bridge (DAB) type submodule topologies formed as a combination of suitable FE and
BE converters
Front-end (FE) Back-end (BE) No. of switches Gain due to topology Degrees of control freedom
half-bridge MC half-bridge 6 (4+2) 1· n 2 (1 fsw , φinter )
half-bridge MC full-bridge 8 (4+4) 0.5· n 3 (1 fsw , 1 φintra , 1 φinter )
half-bridge MC T-type 8 (4+4) 1· n 3 (1 fsw , 1 φintra , 1 φinter )
full-bridge MC half-bridge 10 (8+2) 2· n 3 (1 fsw , 1 φintra , 1 φinter )
full-bridge MC full-bridge 12 (8+4) 1· n 4 (1 fsw , 2 φintra , 1 φinter )
full-bridge MC T-type 12 (8+4) 2· n 4 (1 fsw , 2 φintra , 1 φinter )
T-type MC half-bridge 8 (6+2) 1· n 3 (1 fsw , φintra , 1 φinter )
T-type MC full-bridge 10 (6+4) 0.5· n 4 (1 fsw , 2 φintra , 1 φinter )
T-type MC T-type 10 (6+4) 1· n 4 (1 fsw , 2 φintra , 1 φinter )

consists of a half-bridge matrix-converter (MC) in the front end, followed by an isolation MFT and
back-end H-bridge, which consistently chops the LFAC voltage at a duty-ratio of nearly 100% (over a
half-switching period). The LFAC voltage and current gets propagated by the MFT and subsequently
rectified at MF to obtain a uni-polar and stepped down (0.5n) form of the grid-side voltage. This
205 topology has an additional PFC boost stage at the back-end which is modulated such that the current
i2 through the boost inductor, Lb , is controlled following the stepped-down folded/rectified voltage’s
shape across the film capacitor C3 at the back-end of aIFE, v2 (i.e., i2 ∝ v2 = 0.5n|vac |). The |AC|-DC
PFC boost stage’s operational mode is analogous to the traditional non-isolated PFC rectifier units
[22, 23, 82, 83]. The AC-|AC| aIFE reciprocates the characteristics of shaped current at the Lb side of
210 the PFC boost converter stage to the FE grid side, thus ensuring low total harmonic distortion (THD)
as well as unity power factor (UPF) at the grid side without the necessity for any extra control scheme
augmentation. The pertinent wave-shapes at the grid side, primary side of the MFT and for the PFC
boost conversion stage are illustrated through Fig. 6(b,c,d) for clear visualization of the IFE or S3 T
type AC-DC converter submodule’s operational principle.
215 (4) Single-stage AC-DC Dual-Active-Bridge (DAB) type: The single-stage AC-DC DAB topology consists
of two active bridges on either sides (FE and BE) of the MFT. There is also an inter-bridge inductor
required for power transfer control and current shaping, which may be present as a separate auxiliary
inductor or may be integrated with the isolation transformer (if integrated MFT or iMFT [84] is used).
The three types of relevant converter topologies for the front-end and back-end active bridges, shown
220 via Fig. 7(a-f), are as follows [65]:
(i) Front-end (FE) converter for AC-MFAC conversion: (a) half-bridge MC, (b) full-bridge MC, and (c)
T-type MC;
(ii) Back-end (BE) converter for MFAC-DC conversion: (a) half-bridge, (b) full-bridge, and (c) T-type.
It should be noted that a neutral-point-clamped (NPC) three-level converter is also a considerable
225 option for the BE MFAC-DC conversion. But the full-bridge and T-type converters can accomplish
three-level pulse generation with an added advantage of two less semiconductor devices, and thus the
NPC converter topology is unpopular for BE MFAC-DC conversion in case of DABs. Therefore, the
nine possible AC-DC DAB submodule topologies, resulted as a combination of the relevant FE AC-
MFAC and BE MFAC-DC converters, along with each topology’s switch count, gain by virtue of the
230 topology and degrees of freedom in control (switching frequency, fsw , intra-bridge phase-shift, φintra
and inter-bridge phase-shift, φinter ) are tabulated in Table 2.
T-type MC has been criticized due to unequal power processing by the constituent switches and leads to
lower efficiency due to increased conduction losses compared to the full-bridge MC providing the same
amount of control freedom [65, 85]. Thus, FE T-type MC based AC-DC converters are not favourable
235 choices and can be eliminated. As shown in [65], a comparison of the semiconductor losses in the BE type
converters reveal that both the half-bridge and full-bridge exhibit same conduction losses theoretically if
the same semiconductor devices are employed, but the T-type converter exhibits higher losses compared

11
Figure 7: Types of active bridges on (a,b,c) FE side for AC-MFAC conversion, and on (d,e,f) BE side for MFAC-DC conversion.

12
Figure 8: (a) FE-HB based AC-DC DAB having FE half-bridge MC for AC-MFAC conversion and BE full-bridge for MFAC-DC
conversion, (b) sinusoidal voltage and current on the AC side, (c) the chopped voltage waveforms appearing on both sides of the
FE-HB DAB’s MFT with vp having half the amplitude of vac , (d) BE side DC voltage waveform and current waveforms before
and after filtering; (e) FE-FB based AC-DC DAB having FE half-bridge MC for AC-MFAC conversion and BE full-bridge for
MFAC-DC conversion, (f) AC side sinusoidal voltage and current waveforms, (g) the chopped voltage waveforms appearing
on both sides of the FE-FB DAB’s MFT with vp having the amplitude of vac , (h) BE side DC voltage waveform and current
waveforms before and after filtering.

13
 to the half-bridge and full-bridge counterparts. The converter possibility having a FE full-bridge MC
and BE half-bridge is eliminated due to inherent boost from AC-DC side which is unfavourable for
240 MVAC-LVDC type conversion. Additionally, an AC-DC DAB should have a minimum of three control
freedoms to achieve (i) current shaping for desirable grid side power quality, (ii) soft switching for
safe operation and superior efficiency, and (iii) optimization of transformer/device currents to minimize
conduction related losses. Thus, the topology having FE half-bridge MC and BE half-bridge MC is not
suitable as well. Due to various issues discussed with respect to the other topologies, only two AC-
245 DC DAB topologies are popular having a BE full-bridge and FE half-bridge MC / FE full-bridge MC
leading to 0.5· n/1· n inherent converter gains by virtue of the topology. These two relevant topologies
are discussed in detail as below:
(i) FE half-bridge MC + BE full-bridge (FE-HB based) AC-DC DAB type: This topology is shown in
Fig. 8(a), and is a modification to the IFE type submodule topology (in Fig. 6(a)) by eliminating the
250 boost converter stage [64, 65, 66, 67, 86, 119]. The current shaping and power transfer are controlled by
modulating the back-end full bridge, through the MFT’s leakage inductance Ls , whereas the front-end
half-bridge MC is responsible for AC-MFAC conversion with a forward (AC-MFAC) step-down of 0.5 by
virtue of its topology. The half-bridge MC’s capacitors (C1 and C2 ) are suitably selected based on two
major trade-offs: (i) voltage ripple of each capacitor, that declines with an increment in capacitance’s
255 value, (ii) current passing through the capacitors, that increases with increment in capacitance and
worsens the grid side displacement power factor (pushing towards leading power factor). The relevant
wave-shapes for voltages and currents are shown through the waveform representations in Fig. 8(b,c,d).
(ii) FE full-bridge MC + BE full-bridge (FE-FB based) AC-DC DAB type: This topology is presented in
Fig. 8(e), consisting of a FE full-bridge MC for AC-MFAC conversion and a BE full-bridge for MFAC-
260 DC conversion [62, 63, 65, 66]. The two bridges on either sides of the MFT perform similar actions as
the FE-HB based AC-DC DAB, however, due to the full-bridge MC, the forward step-down of 0.5 is
not available. The FE-FB based AC-DC topology consists of four switches more than the FE-HB type
topology, similar to the IMC type submodule. The suitable capacitor selection part is eliminated in
this topology due to the absence of any half-bridge and the filter capacitors are selected following the
265 conventional method, similar to the other AC-DC topologies. The important wave-shapes for voltages
and currents are shown through the representations in Fig. 8(f,g,h).
(5) FE Matrix Converter + BE Current Doubler Rectifier (MC-CDR) type: The FE MC and BE CDR
type submodule is depicted in Fig. 9(a), constituted of a FE full-bridge MC and a BE current doubler
rectifier [87]. This modular single-phase AC-DC submodule topology has evolved from the single-stage
270 three-phase MC based conversion proposed in [88]. The FE full-bridge MC is modulated for AC-
MFAC conversion using a SPWM scheme for bipolar-chopping of the AC waveform. BE side CDR is
responsible for a 0.5n step down and performs MFAC-DC synchronous rectification [89, 90, 91]. The
relevant voltage and current waveforms at the FE side, primary of MFT and the DC side are presented
respectively in 9(b,c,d). Whenever the absolute value of AC voltage (| vac |) on the primary side of the
275 MFT exceeds twice of the reflected LVDC voltage on the FE/primary side (2Vdc /n), the corresponding
CDR semiconductor device’s blocking diode starts conducting and thus the control on the switching at
the BE side is lost. Though the lower number of semiconductor devices is a merit of this topology, the
power density is affected by bulky inductors in CDR and the lack of controllability at the BE side (for
the | vac |> 2Vdc /n voltage range) is detrimental not only for grid side active current control/shaping
280 but also for bidirectional power flow control over full-cycle.
(6) FE Matrix Converter + BE 6-Switch Converter (MC-6Sw) type: The FE MC and BE 6Sw type submod-
ule for MVAC-LVDC/LVAC conversion is shown in Fig. 10(a), consisting of a FE full-bridge MC and a
BE 6-switch (6Sw) converter [92, 93]. The operation of a full-bridge MC is elaborated for the previous
topologies, and the same strategy can be used to chop the FE AC voltage to MFAC for feeding it to the
285 isolating MFT. The BE 6Sw converter has two AC ports and one DC port and is a suitable adaptation
to the nine-switch converter topology for single-phase applications [94, 95, 96, 97, 98]. Analogous to the
nine-switch converter, the middle switches of the 6Sw converter are shared between the top and bottom
converters by followed an XOR-ed switching strategy, in order to mimic the operation of an 8-switch
back to back-to-back AC-DC-AC power conversion. Thus, compared to the IBE type conversion, this
14
Figure 9: (a) Circuit schematic of the FE MC + BE CDR type submodule, (b) AC side sinusoidal voltage and current
waveforms, (c) primary side voltage and current waveforms, which is similar to the secondary side waveforms, (d) waveforms
of DC side voltage and current before and after the capacitive filter.

Figure 10: (a) The FE MC and BE 6Sw converter based submodule, (b) FE AC side sinusoidal voltage and current waveforms,
(c) BE side AC voltage and current waveforms, (d) BE side DC voltage and current waveforms before and after the DC
capacitive filtering.

15
 Figure 11: A radar chart showing the comparative analysis of the submodules of cascaded MVAC-LVDC conversion and LFT
based TCU solution, based on the criteria of power density, ρ, efficiency, η, cost, σ, failure rate, λ, number of components,
N oC, and control complexity, C.C. which are normalized from 0-1.

290 strategy is able to perform both the MVAC-LVDC/LVAC using a single-stage (with a reduction of two
semiconductor switches), and thus effectively requires one less switch for the AC-DC conversion in the
submodule. However, this topology is constrained by the available modulation index space for the LVAC
and MFAC ports [44, 95]. Following the standardized LVDC and LVAC voltages for hybrid microgrid
applications, this converter would require a high step-down MFT (in the forward AC-DC direction) in
295 order to meet the optimal design specifications, leading to undesirable operational challenges such as
voltage spikes, EMI issues, etc.

4. Comparative evaluation of topologies

In this section, a quantitative comparative analysis is presented between the conventional two-stage IBE
submodule, the emerging single-stage/two-stage matrix based submodules and the LFT based TCU for
300 MVAC-LVDC conversion for grid-connected microgrid applications. A 52.65 kVA three-phase submodule
consisting of three 17.55 kVA submodules, of a 22 kV grid-connected 1 MVA MVDC-LVDC cascaded modular
conversion is considered for this analysis [67], having 19 submodules per phase, whereas, a single cell 52.65
kVA three-phase two-level AC-DC converter along with LFT is considered for the TCU. Each topology’s
merits are quantified based on the criteria of power density (ρ), efficiency (η), cost (σ), failure rate (λ),
305 number of components (N oC) and control complexity (C.C.). For uniformity, it is considered that all the
semiconductor devices are SiC-MOSFET modules (with 1700 V blocking voltage capability), operating at a

16
 Table 3: Comparative Evaluation of 3-Phase Module (consisting of three submodules) possibilities for Cascaded Modular
MVAC-LVDC conversion solution along with LFT based TCU solution for Grid-Connected MVAC-LVDC power conversion
application
Submodule/Topology ρ (kVA/L) η (%) σ ($/kVA) λ[1/MTTF] (10−6 h−1 ) N oC C.C.
(i) IBE type (conv.) 1.7 94.91 46.5 15.8 43 2
(ii) FE IM type 2.5 96.23 45.9 11.3 43 1
(iii) IFE/S3 T type 2.8 96.32 45.2 10.9 46 1
(iv) FE-FB DAB type 3.2 96.81 45.9 11.6 43 1
(iv) FE-HB DAB type 3.4 97.15 38.2 8.4 34 1
(v) MC-CDR type 2.6 95.92 43.6 10.6 43 1
(vi) MC-6Sw type 2.7 96.24 44.2 10.1 40 1
(vii) LFT based TCU 0.3 96.11 38.9 5.6 8 1

switching frequency of 20 kHz. Table 3 presents the comparative evaluation by listing the obtained values for
each criterion with respect to each topology. Subsequently, a radar chart is presented in Fig. 11 where each
criterion is normalized to be in the range of 0-1, which is a representative illustration of the tabulated results
310 in Table 3 for easy visualization of the multi-criteria comparison. The various modelling and comparisons
of the considered topologies for each comparing criterion are comprehensively elaborated as follows.
(i) Power Density, ρ: The quantity of power density shows the power processed by a unit volume of an
electrical equipment which gives an estimate about the volume and (or) floor space occupied by a certain
conversion unit. The volume occupied by each submodule’s component is estimated through the models
315 explained in the Appendix A. The net volume of the submodule can be calculated by simply adding up the
various components’ volumes and dividing it by a volume utilization factor (λV U F ). The volume utilization
factor indicates the packaging of the components within a boxed volume, which ranges from ∼0.3 to ∼0.7
for large power-electronics based systems in literature [29, 65, 99, 100, 101]. A pragmatic value of 0.5 [67] is
considered for the comparative analysis regarding power density in this section. As observed in Table 3 and
320 Fig. 11, SiC-MOSFET based 52.65 kVA three-phase combination of submodules exhibit a superior power
density which is 7-11 times better (depending on topology) than an equivalent LFT based TCU unit as the
LFT contributes to a big chunk of the TCU unit’s volume.
The single-stage AC-DC DAB type submodule topologies offer the best power density among the various
possible topologies, owing to the compact nature of the topology. In general the front-end MC or IMC based
325 three-phase submodule topologies (with near 100% transfer of second harmonic ripple to the BE side) lead
to a better power density, in comparison with the commonly used two-stage topology (with intermediate stiff
DC link), as the second harmonic ripple from the three phases get canceled due to a mutual phase-shift of
2π/3. It should be noted that an integrated medium frequency transformer (iMFT) with specifically designed
leakage inductance is considered for DC-DC or AC-DC DAB configurations in the compared topologies, so
330 that the necessity for an additional inter-bridge auxiliary inductor can be eliminated [65, 67, 105, 111].
(ii) Efficiency, η: The detailed loss model of each component of a submodule is derived and explained in
the Appendix A. The total loss occurring in the submodule is a summation of the individual losses in each of
the components during a line-frequency cycle of the power conversion. These losses consist of variable losses
occurring in the semiconductor devices, as well as, in the passive components like inductors, capacitors and
335 the iMFT, whereas, the fixed losses takes place in the auxiliary power supply, control and driver circuits
dedicated for the switching of semiconductor devices. It is observed through Table 3 and Fig. 11 that the
iMFT and SiC-MOSFET based three-phase submodules exhibit a similar efficiency compared to the LFT
based TCU solutions and even surpasses the efficiency of conventional TCU solution in certain topologies.
This is also highlighted in [29, 51, 67], where MVAC-LVDC isolated conversion is observed to be comparable
340 to the solutions based on LFT in terms of efficiency. Additionally, the FE MC based DAB topologies are
observed to offer a better overall efficiency under a suitable modulation scheme that facilitates full-range
soft-switching, compared to the other two-stage and single-stage modulation schemes.
(iii) Cost, σ: The criteria of cost is expressed in terms of $/kVA, which may vary slightly based on

17
 time and region. For this comparative analysis, the costs of various converter components are considered
345 as per the cost of components (when purchased in bulk) offered by USA-based online component suppliers
as of August, 2021, whereas, the converter manufacturing costs are considered as per the typical wholesale
quotation given by USA-based printed circuit board manufacturers for fabrication, population and testing
of 50-100 kW range converters in August, 2021 (as the three-phase submodule’s power rating considered for
comparative analysis falls in this power range). The cost of the various converter components and typical
350 converter manufacturing costs are added up to present the cost estimate of a certain topology. It is observed
in Table 3 and Fig. 11 that the LFT based TCU is slightly cheaper than most of the SiC-based isolated
submodules except the FE-HB AC-DC DAB based three-phase submodule. In general, the three-phase
submodules based on iMFTs and SiC-MOSFETs are quite cost competitive solutions compared to the LFT
based TCU solution.
355 (iv) Failure Rate, λ: The failure rate of a certain circuit element/equipment is designated by the re-
currence of failure of that element/equipment. In the interest of comparison among the various concerned
topologies, it is considered that even one component’s failure results in undesirable performance of the
converter topology. Thus the failure rate of each component can be added up to estimate the failure rate
probability of a certain topology. It is considered that the comparative failure rates of inductors and MFT
360 are negligible as there is minimal chance of failure. The failure rate of capacitors is expressed as [112]:
(Ta −Tm )
 
λCap = 4· N · C 0.5 Va3 2 10 · 106 / Vr2 Lb


(1)

where, the total of capacitors connected in array is denoted by N , Va is the voltage applied in Volts, C
denotes the capacitance in F, Ta & Tm are the actual and maximum allowable intrinsic temperatures (◦ C)
respectively, Lb denotes the base lifetime in hours at Tm and lastly Vr is the voltage rating in Volts.
The failure rate of MOSFET devices is expressed as:
 
1 1
−1925 T − 298
λmosf et = 64· λb e j +273 (2)
365 where, λb is the base failure rate (=0.012x10-9 ) and Tj is the junction temperature in °C, with the
exponential term indicating the temperature related stress factor for the MOSFET [99, 100, 113].
Therefore, the probability of failure for the concerned topology can be mathematically formulated as a
summation of failure rate probabilities of individual components:
X X
λ= λmosf et(i) + λCap(j) (3)
i j

As shown in [99, 100, 114, 115, 116, 117], mean time to failure (MTTF) is also a commonly used parameter
370 to quantitatively describe the reliability of a converter submodule which is derived as:
Z
M T T F = e−λt dt = 1/λ (4)

It is clearly observed via Table 3 and Fig. 11 that the traditional LFT based solution has the least failure
rate compared to the three-phase submodule topologies. From the perspective of MTTF, the TCU based
solution offers about 20 years of failure free operation, whereas, the MFT based power-electronic submodules
are expected to trigger failures after 10-15 years of operation. Due to lower number of semiconductor devices,
375 the FE-HB MC based AC-DC DAB shows the least failure rate among the power-electronics based three-
phase submodules, whereas, the conventional IBE type topology (with bulky and failure prone electrolytic
capacitor at the intermediate stiff DC link) exhibits the maximum failure rate. Though in this section the
failure rate / reliability discussions are restricted to a three-phase submodule, the reliability of a cascaded
modular converter topology can be improved through the use of redundant submodules as discussed in
380 [99, 100].
(v) Number of Components, N oC: This quantity represents the number of components required to
fabricate a certain three-phase submodule topology and is thus suggestive of the fabrication complexity
of a certain topology. As the LFT based solutions consist of just an LFT and a three-phase AC-DC
18
 Table 4: Experimental Results based Comparative Evaluation of 3-Phase Module possibilities for Cascaded Modular MVAC-
LVDC conversion solution along with LFT based TCU solution for Grid-Connected MVAC-LVDC power conversion application
Submodule/Topology ρ (kVA/L) η (%) σ ($/kVA) λ[1/MTTF] (h−1 ) N oC C.C.
(i) IBE type [128,129,130] 1.65 94.98 46.5 15.8x10−6 43 2
(ii) FE IM type [131,132] 2.48 96.15 45.9 11.3x10−6 43 1
(iii) IFE/S3 T type [51,68] 2.76 96.23 45.2 10.9x10−6 46 1
(iv) FE-FB DAB type [66,133] 3.18 96.76 45.9 11.6x10−6 43 1
(iv) FE-HB DAB type [119,134,135] 3.29 97.05 38.2 8.4x10−6 34 1
(v) MC-CDR type [88] 2.58 95.76 43.6 10.6x10−6 43 1
(vi) MC-6Sw type [95,97] 2.67 96.21 44.2 10.1x10−6 40 1
(vii) LFT based TCU [21,135] 0.3 96.08 38.9 5.6x10−6 8 1

converter submodule, it has by far the least N oC compared to the power-electronic MFT based three-phase
385 submodules. Besides, among the isolated power-electronics based three-phase submodules, the FE-HB MC
based AC-DC DAB shows the least N oC.
(vi) Control Complexity, C.C.: This parameter indicates the number of feedback control loops that are
required to be employed for a certain topology, as the number of control loops is the most fundamental
index for deciding upon the required processing power of the controller [50, 51, 100]. The evaluation is quite
390 simple where the augmentation of a feedback control loop is associated with a score/weight of 1. Thus, only
the two-stage IBE type topology needs two control loops for the operation of the two stages, whereas, the
IFE/S3 T type topology needs just one control loop at the BE PFC boost stage with an autonomous FE MC
based isolation stage without the requirement of a control loop. All other single-stage topologies, including
the LFT based TCU requires only one control loop for their operation. The computational complexity
395 of control algorithm and the control loop requirements for operation of the entire cascaded MVAC-LVDC
structure is not investigated in this section as these quantities are application and controller logistic specific;
thus, the control complexity term is used only within the scope of a three-phase submodule’s operation.
Further, an additional survey is carried out to extract experimentally obtained power density and effi-
ciency values for generation 3 SiC-MOSFET based hardware setups of the compared topologies, as reported
400 in the literature. For a fair comparison, the obtained values are normalized for a 52.65 kVA three-phase
two-level AC-DC submodule, similar to the model based comparison above, and are reported in Table 4. It
should be noted that an experimental hardware’s metrics of cost, failure rate, number of components and
control complexity which are reported in Table 4 are theoretically obtained quantities and would be similar
to Table 3. It can be observed that the experimental result based comparative metrics’ values in Table 4
405 are quite close to the model based values in Table 3. This validates the model based approach presented
above, which is valuable for a quick comparative evaluation of various possible submodules topologies while
selecting the most suitable topology for a certain cascaded modular MVAC-LVDC conversion application
[138].
For a given grid-connected application, the pertinent topology may be chosen by using a suitable Multi
410 Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) technique, for example, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) [118], etc.
If equal weights are assigned to all the criteria, then it can be derived that the FE-HB type MB-DAB
topology is superior based on the considered pertinent criteria of power density, ρ, efficiency, η, cost, σ,
failure rate, λ, number of components, N oC, and control complexity, C.C., and thus can be connected in
an ISOP configuration to form a grid-connected MVAC-LVDC conversion architecture. As the FE-FB type
415 MB-DAB topology is comparable to the FE-HB counterpart as per the quantitative comparison presented
in this paper, a further investigation of the modulation capabilities for these two topologies are presented
in [66], which shows that the FE-HB MB-DAB not only provides the required control flexibility for the
least number of semiconductor devices, but also leads to better modulation flexibility (thus strengthening
its applicability for isolated cascaded modular MVAC-LVDC conversion).

19
420 5. Conclusion and Future Work

A comprehensive overview and comparative analysis of the bidirectional isolated MVAC-LVDC power
conversion technology is presented in this paper. After an introduction on the fast evolving paradigm of the
modern electrical grid and the importance of MVAC-LVDC conversion for distribution grid modernisation,
pertinent discussion is provided for the drawbacks of LFT based MVAC-LVDC conversion solutions and the
425 various categories of power-electronic isolated MVAC-LVDC conversion. A qualitative comparison clearly
shows the superiority of cascaded modular conversion (with ISOP connection of submodules) architecture
over the modular multilevel, semi-modular and single-cell conversion strategies for isolated MVAC-LVDC
conversion application. Subsequently, elaborations are provided for the various two-stage and single-stage
AC-DC conversion submodules available in literature for the cascaded modular conversion strategy, along
430 with suitable illustrations of their circuit schematic and wave-shapes of important electrical quantities.
Ultimately, a quantitative comparative analysis of the isolated AC-DC conversion possibilities, based on
the criteria of power density, ρ, efficiency, η, cost, σ, failure rate, λ, number of components, N oC, and
control complexity, C.C., is provided. This comparative evaluation concludes that a FE-HB MB-DAB type
submodule exhibits the best performance while equal weightage is considered for each criterion, and thus can
435 be connected in an ISOP configuration to yield a superior MVAC-LVDC isolated conversion architecture.
As a future work, investigative reviews of the discussed isolated MVAC-LVDC power conversion technol-
ogy for specific emerging microgrid applications like EV fast-charging stations, green data centres, cluster-of-
buildings, ports, etc. can be carried out, which has not been presented comprehensively in the literature yet.
Such reviews should not only identify the most suitable topology for a certain microgrid application (with a
440 given peak power and utility-grid’s medium-voltage level), but also the quantified techno-economic benefits
of the selected isolated MVAC-LVDC power conversion topology over the presently used grid-interconnection
methodology. Recently, various industries and governmental agencies worldwide are also publishing white-
papers regarding power-electronics based isolated grid-connection, which can also be reviewed as a section
to capture the important industry perspectives in application specific review articles.

445 Acknowledgement

This research is supported by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore
under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme.

Appendix A. Loss and Volume Models

This appendix describes the loss and volume models used in this paper for loss/efficiency and vol-
450 ume/power density computations. The various models are adopted from the relevant literature where such
models are presented with rigorous experimental validation. The loss models for semiconductor devices
(MOSFET here), MFT, inductor and capacitor, along with volume models for heat sinks, MFT, inductor
and capacitor are presented as follows:
(i) Semiconductor Devices (MOSFET): Low switching losses are characteristic of wide band-gap (WBG)
455 semiconductor devices and a technique for accurate analytical modelling of the SiC MOSFETs’ turn-on and
turn-off losses on the basis of datasheet parameter extraction is presented via [102]. Considering the turn-on
and turn-off events of the MOSFET defined with respect to the MOSFET’s drain-to-source voltage, vds ,
gate-to-source voltage, vgs and channel current, ich [67], the turn-on and turn-off loss energies of a MOSFET
within the concerned converter’s half-bridge leg are respectively modelled as:

Eloss(on) = trs (Vleg − VLd )Imp + Erf + Ers

+tf v (Imp + 2Ioss )(Vleg − VLd )
+0.5{tri (Vleg − VLd )Imp }; (A.1)
Eloss(of f ) = 0.5{tf i (Vleg + VLd )(Imp − 2Ioss )
+trv Vleg (Imp − 2Ioss )}

20
460 where, Imp and Vleg are the respective current at the half-bridge leg’s mid-point and voltage blocked
across the half-bridge leg, VLd is the voltage drop across the parasitic inductance of the MOSFET, Ioss is
the MOSFET parasitic capacitance’s charging current, Ers and Erf are the reverse recovery losses of the
MOSFET during the conducting phase and recovery phase respectively. If ZVS turn-on takes place for
the SiC MOSFET, the total switching loss energy of the particular MOSFET device exclusively contains
465 the turn-off loss and the turn-on loss is negligible. In case of a half-bridge matrix leg having four-quadrant
switches (anti-series combination of MOSFETs), the modelling aspect of switching loss and the corresponding
the characteristic of ZVS turn-on become alike, only if one of the anti-series MOSFETs in each four-quadrant
device pair is gated ON for the corresponding half of the line frequency cycle [65, 119].
The total conduction loss of a MOSFET device can be expressed as per the following formula [65]:
1/f
Z sw
Eloss(Cond) = i2dev(rms) RDSon (VGS , idev (t))dt (A.2)
0

470 where, idev is the current conducted by the concerned MOSFET and RDSon is the concerned MOSFET’s
equivalent resistance dependent on junction temperature.
The gross switching losses in a converter or a submodule can be calculated by adding up the individual
losses associated with each semiconductor device’s switching events, as follows:
Nsw
Ploss(Sw) = fsw Σ Eloss(on)i + Eloss(of f )i (A.3)
i=1

where, fsw represents the switching frequency and Nsw is the concerned submodule’s number of switches.
475 Similarly, the converter’s total conduction losses of can be computed by adding up the individual con-
duction losses occurring in each semiconductor device, as:
Nsw
Ploss(Cond) = fsw Σ Eloss(cond)i (A.4)
i=1

(ii) Heat Sink and Auxiliary Power Supply: Heat sinks in a converter are utilized to remove the heat
produced due to losses in the devices and ensure that the junction temperature is maintained within the
datasheet’s specified limit, Tjmax . For better design flexibility in a submodule, it is considered that the
480 MOSFETs on the FE and BE sides of MFT are affixed to independent heat sinks [67]. The heat sink can
be effectively designed by adopting the following formulae:

THSmax = min(Tjmax − RθJCk · (Ploss(Sw)k + Ploss(C.)k ));

k P
(Ploss(Sw)k +Ploss(Cond)k ) (A.5)
1 k
V olHS = CSPI · THSmax −Ta

where, k denotes the number of devices mounted on the heat sink, THSmax is the concerned heat sink
design’s maximum temperature specified, Ta denotes the ambient temperature, RθJC is the MOSFET’s
datasheet based junction to heat sink thermal resistance value and CSPI denotes the cooling system’s
485 performance index which is approximated to be 10 W/(K dm3 ) for a heat-sink with forced air-cooling
[99, 100, 103].
It is necessary for each submodule’s MOSFET devices gate drivers to have their own auxiliary power
supply, FPGA board for generation of required gating pulse, etc. that contribute towards the fixed auxiliary
losses, Paux as well as the auxiliary volume, V olaux [65, 67].
490 (iii) Medium Frequency Transformer (MFT): As the flux in isolation transformer of modulated power
converters is non-sinusoidal in nature, the improved generalized Steinmetz’s equation (IGSE) [41] is used
for MFT’s core loss expression derivation in case of pulsed voltage waveforms, as follows:
β
Pcore = 2α+β ki fsw
α
Bpk D1−α V olcore
β
kT c ;
β−1 α−1 1.7061 (A.6)
ki = K/{2 π (0.276 + 1.354+α )}

21
 where, α, β and K are the respective Steinmetz’s coefficients as per the given core materials’ datasheets,
B pk denotes the peak magnetic flux density, D denotes the the applied voltage pulse’s duty cycle, V olcore
495 is the core’s volume and kT c factors in the temperature dependent core loss variation.
The losses in a certain MFT winding, comprising of litz/round conducting wire, is computed by utilizing
the following equivalent foil winding based model, derived in [41, 104]:

2 Lwx 2
Pwx = Iwx(rms) meqx [ς1 + ς2 (m2eqx − 1)] (A.7)
hwx δσeq (Tw ) 3
where, Iwx(rms) is the RMS current through the MFT’s winding x, Lwx , hwx and meqx are the given
winding’s mean length, height and equivalent foil-winding model’s layers, δ denotes the skin-depth, (ς1 , ς2 )
500 define the proximity factors and σeq denotes the equivalent DC conductivity. The expressions for total losses
and boxed volume for a two winding MFT are given as follows:

Ploss(M F T ) = Pcore + Pw(pri) + Pw(sec) ;

(A.8)
V ol(M F T ) = lc hc (wc + k1 wpri + k2 wsec )
where, lc , wc and hc are the MFT core’s respective length, width and height, wpri and wsec are the
respective widths of the MFT’s primary and secondary windings and (k 1 , k 2 ) are constant factors related
to the MFT’s winding arrangement (e.g. k1 = k2 = 1 for concentric windings).
505 (iv) AC and DC Filter Inductors: Filter inductors are utilized on the AC side for attenuating the
switching frequency based harmonics (mostly coupled with AC filter film capacitors) and in certain converter
topologies used as DC filters for filtering second harmonic ripple along with a DC capacitive filter. The losses
occurring in the filter inductor is evaluated in a similar manner as the MFT [65, 105]:
β
Pind = R´dc (F I 2 + GH 2 )N L + 2α+β Ki fsw
α
Bpk D1−α Vcore
β
(A.9)
R´dc and N are the winding’s per unit length DC resistance and number of turns respectively, F and
510 G captures the respective skin effect and proximity effect, and the other parameters are explained in the
previous subsection on MFT’s loss modelling. The volume of the inductor can also be computed similar to
the MFT with only one difference of having only one winding, as follows:

V ol(ind) = lc hc (wc + k1 wwind ) (A.10)

where, lc , wc and hc are the inductor core’s length, width and height respectively, wwind is the thicknesses
of the inductor winding.
515 (v) AC and DC Capacitors AC capacitors are utilised in submodule/converter topologies only when
there is a special necessity in terms of AC filter design or a FE half-bridge converter’s capacitor leg design in
a particular submodule [106]. A polypropylene metallized film capacitor’s loss model is expressed as below:
X
2 2
Ploss(Cac) = {2πfu Cac VCac (fu )tgδ0 + RCaceq ICac (fu )} (A.11)
u
| {z } | {z }
dielectric losses joule losses

where, RCaceq and tgδ0 are the equivalent series resistance and dissipation factor as per datasheet, ICac
and VCac denote the pass through current and terminal voltage of the AC capacitor (Cac ) respectively and
520 fu denotes the frequency with index as u. The AC capacitor’s volume, V olCac is located by constructing a
look-up table of the datasheet based volumes of polypropylene film capacitors [106].
DC capacitors are primarily utilized for filtering switching frequency based harmonics in case of sub-
modules having IMC or DMC type AC-MFAC power conversion, and also for filtering second harmonic
component (for providing an intermediate DC link) in case of two-staged AC-HFAC conversion [108]. The
525 concerned power loss, Ploss(Cdc) and volume, V olCdc of the polypropylene metallized film type DC filter
capacitor is evaluated in a similar manner as the AC filter capacitor [107, 109].

22
 On the other hand, the loss model of an electrolytic capacitor, employed in certain conventional con-
verter/submodule topologies as a DC filter [109], can be expressed as:

M2 2
Ploss(Cdc) = I R2ω0 + 0.5Io2 Rh kh (A.12)
8 o
where, M is the effective modulation index of AC-DC conversion, Io is the DC current magnitude, R2ω0 is
530 the equivalent series resistance (ESR) offered to the second harmonic component, Rh is the equivalent series
resistance (ESR) offered offered to the higher order harmonics (in the range of switching frequency), and kh
is a coefficient dependent on the switching function of the converter/submodule. The electrolytic capacitors
are available in different packages (and thus sizes) and its volume, V olCdc can be found by constructing a
look-up table for the volumes of the different arrays of aluminium electrolytic capacitors available in the
535 datasheets as per [110].

References
[1] Fang X, Misra S, Xue G, Yang D. Smart grid—The new and improved power grid: A survey. IEEE communications
surveys & tutorials. 2011 Dec 9;14(4):944-80. https://doi.org/10.1109/SURV.2011.101911.00087.
[2] Blaabjerg F, Teodorescu R, Liserre M, Timbus AV. Overview of control and grid synchronization for dis-
540 tributed power generation systems. IEEE Transactions on industrial electronics. 2006 Oct 2;53(5):1398-409.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2006.881997.
[3] Nikkhajoei H, Lasseter RH. Distributed generation interface to the CERTS microgrid. IEEE Transactions on power
delivery. 2009 Jun 23;24(3):1598-608. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2009.2021040.
[4] Liu N, Yu X, Wang C, Li C, Ma L, Lei J. Energy-sharing model with price-based demand response
545 for microgrids of peer-to-peer prosumers. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. 2017 Jan 9;32(5):3569-83.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2017.2649558.
[5] Carrasco JM, Franquelo LG, Bialasiewicz JT, Galván E, Portillo Guisado RC, Prats MM, León JI, Moreno-Alfonso N.
Power-electronic systems for the grid integration of renewable energy sources: A survey. IEEE Transactions on industrial
electronics. 2006 Aug 7;53(4):1002-16. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2006.878356.
550 [6] Blaabjerg F, Chen Z, Kjaer SB. Power electronics as efficient interface in dispersed power generation systems. IEEE
Transactions on power electronics. 2004 Sep 3;19(5):1184-94. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2004.833453.
[7] Huang AQ, Crow ML, Heydt GT, Zheng JP, Dale SJ. The future renewable electric energy delivery and
management (FREEDM) system: the energy internet. Proceedings of the IEEE. 2010 Nov 11;99(1):133-48.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2010.2081330.
555 [8] Vazquez S, Lukic SM, Galvan E, Franquelo LG, Carrasco JM. Energy storage systems for transport and grid applications.
IEEE Transactions on industrial electronics. 2010 Sep 23;57(12):3881-95. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2010.2076414.
[9] Tu H, Feng H, Srdic S, Lukic S. Extreme fast charging of electric vehicles: A technology overview. IEEE Transactions on
Transportation Electrification. 2019 Dec 10;5(4):861-78. https://doi-org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.1109/TTE.2019.2958709.
[10] Blaabjerg F, Liserre M, Ma K. Power electronics converters for wind turbine systems. IEEE Transactions on industry
560 applications. 2011 Dec 23;48(2):708-19. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2011.2181290.
[11] Manickavasagam K. Intelligent energy control center for distributed generators using multi-agent system. IEEE Transac-
tions on power systems. 2014 Dec 1;30(5):2442-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2368592.
[12] Liu X, Wang P, Loh PC. A hybrid AC/DC microgrid and its coordination control. IEEE Transactions on smart grid. 2011
Mar 17;2(2):278-86. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2011.2116162.
565 [13] Eghtedarpour N, Farjah E. Power control and management in a hybrid AC/DC microgrid. IEEE transactions on smart
grid. 2014 Apr 10;5(3):1494-505. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2013.2294275.
[14] Gupta A, Doolla S, Chatterjee K. Hybrid AC–DC microgrid: systematic evaluation of control strategies. IEEE Transactions
on Smart Grid. 2017 Jul 14;9(4):3830-43. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2017.2727344.
[15] Raman G, Peng JC. Residential Microgrids for Increasing Community Acceptance of Smart Grid Services. In
570 2018 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D) 2018 Apr 16 (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TDC.2018.8440247.
[16] Amoiralis EI, Tsili MA, Kladas AG. Transformer design and optimization: a literature survey. IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery. 2009 Sep 22;24(4):1999-2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2009.2028763.
[17] Gao C. Voltage control in distribution networks using on-load tap changer transformers (Doctoral dissertation, University
575 of Bath).
[18] Choi S, Enjeti PN, Pitel IJ. Polyphase transformer arrangements with reduced kVA capacities for harmonic cur-
rent reduction in rectifier-type utility interface. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 1996 Sep;11(5):680-90.
https://doi.org/10.1109/63.535400.
[19] Choi S, Lee BS, Enjeti PN. New 24-pulse diode rectifier systems for utility interface of high-power AC motor drives. IEEE
580 Transactions on Industry Applications. 1997 Mar;33(2):531-41. https://doi.org/10.1109/28.568020.
[20] Fuentes R, Estrada J, Neira L, Barrientos E. Increasing Copper Production in Electrochemical Plants Using New Small
Transformer–Rectifiers in Parallel With Existing Power Rectifiers. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications. 2015 Jul
28;52(1):641-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2015.2461627.

23
 [21] Yousefpoor N, Parkhideh B, Azidehak A, Bhattacharya S, Fardanesh B. Modular transformer converter-based convertible
585 static transmission controller for transmission grid management. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2014 Jan
22;29(12):6293-306.
[22] Friedli T, Kolar JW. The essence of three-phase PFC rectifier systems—Part I. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics.
2013 Jan 16;28(1):176-98. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2197867.
[23] Friedli T, Hartmann M, Kolar JW. The essence of three-phase PFC rectifier systems—Part II. IEEE Transactions on
590 Power Electronics. 2013 Apr 16;29(2):543-60. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2013.2258472.
[24] She X, Huang AQ, Burgos R. Review of solid-state transformer technologies and their application in power dis-
tribution systems. IEEE journal of emerging and selected topics in power electronics. 2013 Aug 15;1(3):186-98.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2013.2277917.
[25] Yadav GN. Analysis, Design and control of cascaded modular solid-state transformer (Doctoral dissertation, National
595 University of Singapore).
[26] Falcones S, Mao X, Ayyanar R. Topology comparison for solid state transformer implementation. InIEEE PES general
meeting 2010 Jul 25 (pp. 1-8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PES.2010.5590086.
[27] Hannan MA, Ker PJ, Lipu MS, Choi ZH, Rahman MS, Muttaqi KM, Blaabjerg F. State of the art of solid-state transform-
ers: Advanced topologies, implementation issues, recent progress and improvements. Ieee Access. 2020 Jan 17;8:19113-32.
600 https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2967345.
[28] Huber JE, Kolar JW. Applicability of solid-state transformers in today’s and future distribution grids. IEEE Transactions
on Smart Grid. 2017 Aug 10;10(1):317-26. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2017.2738610.
[29] Huber JE, Kolar JW. Volume/weight/cost comparison of a 1MVA 10 kV/400 V solid-state against a conventional low-
frequency distribution transformer. In 2014 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE) 2014 Sep 14 (pp.
605 4545-4552). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE.2014.6954023.
[30] Basu K, Shahani A, Sahoo AK, Mohan N. A single-stage solid-state transformer for PWM AC drive with
source-based commutation of leakage energy. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2014 Apr 30;30(3):1734-46.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2014.2320996.
[31] Qin H, Kimball JW. Solid-state transformer architecture using AC–AC dual-active-bridge converter. IEEE Transactions
610 on Industrial Electronics. 2012 Jun 13;60(9):3720-30. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2012.2204710.
[32] Chen H, Prasai A, Divan D. Dyna-C: A minimal topology for bidirectional solid-state transformers. IEEE transactions on
power electronics. 2016 Mar 29;32(2):995-1005. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2016.2547983.
[33] Tripathi AK, Mainali K, Patel DC, Kadavelugu A, Hazra S, Bhattacharya S, Hatua K. Design considerations of a 15-kV
SiC IGBT-based medium-voltage high-frequency isolated DC–DC converter. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications.
615 2015 Jan 20;51(4):3284-94. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2015.2394294.
[34] Li X, Li D, Chang G, Gong W, Packwood M, Pottage D, Wang Y, Luo H, Liu G. High-Voltage Hybrid IGBT Power
Modules for Miniaturization of Rolling Stock Traction Inverters. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2021 Mar
1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2021.3059544.
[35] Huang AQ, Zhu Q, Wang L, Zhang L. 15 kV SiC MOSFET: An enabling technology for medium voltage
620 solid state transformers. CPSS Transactions on Power Electronics and Applications. 2017 Aug 14;2(2):118-30.
https://doi.org/10.24295/CPSSTPEA.2017.00012.
[36] Rothmund D, Guillod T, Bortis D, Kolar JW. 99% efficient 10 kV SiC-based 7 kV/400 V DC transformer for fu-
ture data centers. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2018 Dec 10;7(2):753-67.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2018.2886139.
625 [37] Zhu Q, Wang L, Huang AQ, Booth K, Zhang L. 7.2-kV Single-Stage Solid-State Transformer Based on the Current-Fed
Series Resonant Converter and 15-kV SiC mosfet s. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2018 Apr 23;34(2):1099-112.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2018.2829174.
[38] Ji S, Zhang Z, Wang F. Overview of high voltage SiC power semiconductor devices: Development and application. CES
Transactions on Electrical Machines and Systems. 2017 Oct 30;1(3):254-64. https://doi.org/10.23919/TEMS.2017.8086104.
630 [39] Madhusoodhanan S, Tripathi A, Patel D, Mainali K, Kadavelugu A, Hazra S, Bhattacharya S, Hatua K. Solid-state trans-
former and MV grid tie applications enabled by 15 kV SiC IGBTs and 10 kV SiC MOSFETs based multilevel converters.
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications. 2015 Mar 11;51(4):3343-60. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2015.2412096.
[40] Leibl M, Ortiz G, Kolar JW. Design and experimental analysis of a medium-frequency transformer for solid-state trans-
former applications. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2016 Nov 1;5(1):110-23.
635 https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2623679.
[41] Mogorovic M, Dujic D. 100 kW, 10 kHz medium-frequency transformer design optimization and experimental verification.
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2018 May 15;34(2):1696-708. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2018.2835564.
[42] Czyz P, Guillod T, Krismer F, Huber J, Kolar JW. Design and Experimental Analysis of 166 kW Medium-Voltage Medium-
Frequency Air-Core Transformer for 1: 1-DCX Applications. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power
640 Electronics. 2021 Feb 19. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2021.3060506.
[43] Schrittwieser L, Cortés P, Fässler L, Bortis D, Kolar JW. Modulation and control of a three-phase phase-
modular isolated matrix-type PFC rectifier. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2017 Jul 12;33(6):4703-15.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2017.2726342.
[44] Saha J, Yadav GN, Panda SK. A Review on Bidirectional Matrix-Based AC-DC Conversion for Modular Solid-State-
645 Transformers. In 2019 IEEE 4th International Future Energy Electronics Conference (IFEEC) 2019 Nov 25 (pp. 1-8).
IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IFEEC47410.2019.9015013.
[45] Briz F, Lopez M, Rodriguez A, Arias M. Modular power electronic transformers: modular multilevel con-
verter versus cascaded H-bridge solutions. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine. 2016 Dec 21;10(4):6-19.

24
 https://doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2016.2611648.
650 [46] Malinowski M, Gopakumar K, Rodriguez J, Perez MA. A survey on cascaded multilevel inverters. IEEE Transactions on
industrial electronics. 2009 Aug 28;57(7):2197-206. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2009.2030767.
[47] Debnath S, Qin J, Bahrani B, Saeedifard M, Barbosa P. Operation, control, and applications of the
modular multilevel converter: A review. IEEE transactions on power electronics. 2014 Mar 5;30(1):37-53.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2014.2309937.
655 [48] Kolluri S, Gorla NB, Sapkota R, Panda SK. A new control architecture with spatial comb filter and spa-
tial repetitive controller for circulating current harmonics elimination in a droop-regulated modular multilevel
converter for wind farm application. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2019 Feb 4;34(11):10509-23.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2019.2897150.
[49] Kolluri S, Gorla NB, Panda SK. Capacitor voltage ripple suppression in a modular multilevel converter using frequency-
660 adaptive spatial repetitive-based circulating current controller. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2020 Feb
5;35(9):9839-49. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2020.2971737.
[50] Huber JE, Kolar JW. Solid-state transformers: On the origins and evolution of key concepts. IEEE Industrial Electronics
Magazine. 2016 Sep 26;10(3):19-28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2016.2588878.
[51] Huber JE. Conceptualization and multi-objective analysis of multi-cell solid-state transformers (Doctoral dissertation,
665 ETH Zurich).
[52] Akagi H. Classification, terminology, and application of the modular multilevel cascade converter (MMCC). IEEE Trans-
actions on power electronics. 2011 Apr 19;26(11):3119-30. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2011.2143431.
[53] Zhao C, Dujic D, Mester A, Steinke JK, Weiss M, Lewdeni-Schmid S, Chaudhuri T, Stefanutti P. Power electronic
traction transformer—Medium voltage prototype. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2013 Aug 16;61(7):3257-
670 68. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2013.2278960.
[54] Zhao T, Wang G, Bhattacharya S, Huang AQ. Voltage and power balance control for a cascaded H-
bridge converter-based solid-state transformer. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2012 Sep 3;28(4):1523-32.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2216549.
[55] Shah DG, Crow ML. Stability assessment extensions for single-phase distribution solid-state transformers. IEEE Transac-
675 tions on Power Delivery. 2015 Jan 20;30(3):1636-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2015.2394305.
[56] Hwang SH, Liu X, Kim JM, Li H. Distributed digital control of modular-based solid-state transformer using DSP+ FPGA.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2012 Jun 27;60(2):670-80. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2012.2206354.
[57] Zhao B, Song Q, Liu W. A practical solution of high-frequency-link bidirectional solid-state transformer based on
advanced components in hybrid microgrid. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2014 Aug 22;62(7):4587-97.
680 https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2014.2350459.
[58] Gorla NB, Kolluri S, Chai M, Panda SK. A comprehensive harmonic analysis and control strategy for improved input power
quality in a cascaded modular solid state transformer. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2018 Oct 1;34(7):6219-32.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2018.2873201.
[59] Everts J, Krismer F, Van den Keybus J, Driesen J, Kolar JW. Optimal ZVS modulation of single-phase single-
685 stage bidirectional DAB AC–DC converters. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2013 Nov 20;29(8):3954-70.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2013.2292026.
[60] Everts J. Closed-form solution for efficient ZVS modulation of DAB converters. IEEE transactions on Power Electronics.
2016 Dec 1;32(10):7561-76. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2016.2633507.
[61] Lu J, Bai K, Taylor AR, Liu G, Brown A, Johnson PM, McAmmond M. A modular-designed three-phase high-efficiency
690 high-power-density EV battery charger using dual/triple-phase-shift control. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics.
2017 Nov 2;33(9):8091-100. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2017.2769661.
[62] Norrga S. Experimental study of a soft-switched isolated bidirectional AC–DC converter without auxiliary circuit. IEEE
transactions on power electronics. 2006 Nov 13;21(6):1580-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2006.882969.
[63] Weise ND, Castelino G, Basu K, Mohan N. A single-stage dual-active-bridge-based soft switched AC–DC converter
695 with open-loop power factor correction and other advanced features. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2013
Nov 27;29(8):4007-16. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2013.2293112.
[64] Jauch F, Biela J. Combined phase-shift and frequency modulation of a dual-active-bridge AC–DC converter with PFC.
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2016 Jan 8;31(12):8387-97. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2016.2515850.
[65] Jauch FT. Medium Voltage AC-DC Converter Systems for Ultra-Fast Charging Stations for Electric Vehicles (Doctoral
700 dissertation, ETH Zurich).
[66] Saha J, Gorla NB, Panda SK. Modulation of Direct Matrix-Based Dual-Active-Bridge (MB-DAB) AC-DC Convert-
ers. In 2021 IEEE 12th Energy Conversion Congress Exposition-Asia (ECCE-Asia) 2021 May 24 (pp. 74-79). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE-Asia49820.2021.9479303. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE-Asia49820.2021.9479303
[67] Saha J, Hazarika D, Gorla NB, Panda SK. Machine Learning Aided Optimization Framework for Design of Medium-
705 Voltage Grid-Connected Solid-State-Transformers. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics.
2021 Apr 20. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2021.3074408.
[68] Huber JE, Böhler J, Rothmund D, Kolar JW. Analysis and cell-level experimental verification of a 25 kW all-SiC isolated
front end 6.6 kV/400 V AC-DC solid-state transformer. CPSS Transactions on Power Electronics and Applications. 2017
Aug 14;2(2):140-8. https://doi.org/10.24295/CPSSTPEA.2017.00014.
710 [69] Huber JE, Rothmund D, Wang L, Kolar JW. Full-ZVS modulation for all-SiC ISOP-type isolated front end (IFE) solid-
state transformer. In 2016 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE) 2016 Sep 18 (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE.2016.7855128.
[70] Huber JE, Rothmund D, Kolar JW. Comparative evaluation of isolated front end and isolated back end multi-cell SSTs.

25
 In 2016 IEEE 8th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference (IPEMC-ECCE Asia) 2016 May 22
715 (pp. 3536-3545). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPEMC.2016.7512863.
[71] Li H, Jiang Z. On automatic resonant frequency tracking in LLC series resonant converter based on zero-
current duration time of secondary diode. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2015 Jul 29;31(7):4956-62.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2015.2462086.
[72] Lo YK, Lin CY, Hsieh MT, Lin CY. Phase-shifted full-bridge series-resonant DC-DC converters for wide load variations.
720 IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2010 Jul 15;58(6):2572-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2010.2058076.
[73] Huber JE, Miniböck J, Kolar JW. Generic derivation of dynamic model for half-cycle DCM series resonant converters.
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2017 May 10;33(1):4-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2017.2703300.
[74] Schäfer J, Kolar JW. Zero-Voltage-Switching Auxiliary Circuit for Minimized Inductance Requirement in Series-
Resonant DC/DC Converter Systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2020 Nov 18;36(6):6469-79.
725 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2020.3038996.
[75] Krismer F, Kolar JW. Accurate small-signal model for the digital control of an automotive bidirectional dual active bridge.
IEEE transactions on power electronics. 2009 Aug 18;24(12):2756-68. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2009.2027904.
[76] Krismer F, Kolar JW. Efficiency-optimized high-current dual active bridge converter for automotive applications. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2011 Feb 7;59(7):2745-60. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2011.2112312.
730 [77] Krismer F, Kolar JW. Closed form solution for minimum conduction loss modulation of DAB converters. IEEE Transac-
tions on Power Electronics. 2011 May 27;27(1):174-88. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2011.2157976.
[78] Segaran D, Holmes DG, McGrath BP. Enhanced load step response for a bidirectional DC–DC converter. IEEE Transac-
tions on Power Electronics. 2012 May 22;28(1):371-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2200505.
[79] Akagi H, Kinouchi SI, Miyazaki Y. Bidirectional isolated dual-active-bridge (DAB) DC-DC converters using 1.2-kV
735 400-A SiC-MOSFET dual modules. CPSS Transactions on Power Electronics and Applications. 2016 Dec;1(1):33-40.
https://doi.org/10.24295/CPSSTPEA.2016.00004.
[80] An F, Song W, Yu B, Yang K. Model predictive control with power self-balancing of the output parallel DAB DC–DC
converters in power electronic traction transformer. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics.
2018 Apr 5;6(4):1806-18. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2018.2823364.
740 [81] Muthuraj SS, Kanakesh VK, Das P, Panda SK. Triple phase shift control of an LLL tank based bidi-
rectional dual active bridge converter. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2016 Dec 8;32(10):8035-53.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2016.2637506.
[82] Chen Z, Yang P, Zhou G, Xu J, Chen Z. Variable duty cycle control for quadratic boost PFC converter. IEEE transactions
on industrial electronics. 2016 Feb 19;63(7):4222-32. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2016.2532838.
745 [83] Xu H, Chen D, Xue F, Li X. Optimal design method of interleaved boost PFC for improving efficiency from switching
frequency, boost inductor, and output voltage. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2018 Sep 27;34(7):6088-107.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2018.2872427.
[84] Saha J, Subramanium A, Panda SK. Design of Integrated Medium Frequency Transformer (iMFT) for Dual-Active-Bridge
(DAB) Based Solid-State-Transformers. In 2021 IEEE 12th Energy Conversion Congress Exposition-Asia (ECCE-Asia)
750 2021 May 24 (pp. 893-898). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE-Asia49820.2021.9479113.
[85] Wang L, Wang H, Su M, Sun Y, Yang J, Dong M, Li X, Gui W, Feng J. A three-level T-type indirect matrix converter
based on the third-harmonic injection technique. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics.
2017 Feb 8;5(2):841-53. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2017.2666418.
[86] Saha J, Yadav GN, Panda SK. A Bidirectional Matrix-Based AC-DC Dual-Active Bridge for Modular Solid-State-
755 Transformers. In IECON 2020 The 46th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society 2020 Oct 18
(pp. 1136-1141). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON43393.2020.9255301.
[87] Saha J, Yadav GN, Panda SK. A Matrix-Based Solid-State-Transformer For A Hybrid Nanogrid. In2018 IEEE In-
ternational Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES) 2018 Dec 18 (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PEDES.2018.8707623.
760 [88] Singh AK, Jeyasankar E, Das P, Panda SK. A single-stage matrix-based isolated three-phase AC–DC converter
with novel current commutation. IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification. 2016 Oct 6;3(4):814-30.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TTE.2016.2615811.
[89] Wang JM, Wu ST, Yen SC, Chiu HJ. A simple inverter for arc-welding machines with current doubler rectifier. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2011 Mar 10;58(11):5278-81. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2011.2126538.
765 [90] Kim JH, Lee IO, Moon GW. Integrated dual full-bridge converter with current-doubler rectifier for EV charger. IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics. 2015 Mar 30;31(2):942-51. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2015.2417571.
[91] Zhao L, Chen J, Chen T, Shi Y, Fan Z, Zhuang Z. Zero-voltage and zero-current switching dual-transformer-based full-
bridge converter with current doubler rectifier. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2020 May 25;35(12):12949-58.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2020.2997017.
770 [92] Fan S, Xue Y, Zhang K. A novel active power decoupling method for single-phase photovoltaic or energy storage ap-
plications. In 2012 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE) 2012 Sep 15 (pp. 2439-2446). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE.2012.6342406.
[93] Gorla NB, Ali K, Das P, Panda SK. Analysis of active power decoupling in single-phase rectifier using six-switch
topology. In 2016 IEEE 2nd Annual Southern Power Electronics Conference (SPEC) 2016 Dec 5 (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
775 https://doi.org/10.1109/SPEC.2016.7846133.
[94] Ali K, Das P, Panda SK. A special application criterion of nine-switch converter with improved thermal perfor-
mance. In 2017 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC) 2017 Mar 26 (pp. 31-36). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/APEC.2017.7930609.

26
 [95] Ali K, Surapaneni RK, Das P, Panda SK. An SiC-MOSFET-based nine-switch single-stage three-phase
780 AC–DC isolated converter. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2017 May 5;64(11):9083-93.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2017.2701764.
[96] Ali K, Das P, Panda SK. A special application criterion of the nine-switch converter with reduced conduction loss. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2017 Aug 31;65(4):2853-62. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2017.2748044.
[97] Ali K, Dube SK, Das P, Peng JC, Rogers DJ. Improvement of ZVS Range and Current Quality of the
785 Nine-Switch Single-Stage AC–DC Converter. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2019 Oct 14;35(5):4658-68.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2019.2947151.
[98] Kominami T, Fujimoto Y. A novel nine-switch inverter for independent control of two three-phase loads. In 2007 IEEE
Industry applications annual meeting 2007 Sep 23 (pp. 2346-2350). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/07IAS.2007.354.
[99] Huber JE, Kolar JW. Optimum number of cascaded cells for high-power medium-voltage AC–DC con-
790 verters. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2016 Sep 2;5(1):213-32.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2605702.
[100] Huber JE, Kolar JW. Optimum number of cascaded cells for high-power medium-voltage multilevel con-
verters. In 2013 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition 2013 Sep 15 (pp. 359-366). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE.2013.6646723.
795 [101] Kolar JW, Biela J, Waffler S, Friedli T, Badstübner U. Performance trends and limitations of power electronic systems.
In 2010 6th International Conference on Integrated Power Electronics Systems 2010 Mar 16 (pp. 1-20). IEEE.
[102] Christen D, Biela J. Analytical switching loss modeling based on datasheet parameters for mosfet s in a half-bridge.
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2018 Jun 27;34(4):3700-10. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2018.2851068.
[103] Drofenik U, Laimer G, Kolar JW. Theoretical converter power density limits for forced convection cooling. In International
800 conference, Power electronics, intelligent motion, power quality 2005 Jun 7 (pp. 608-619).
[104] Mogorovic M, Dujic D. Medium frequency transformer leakage inductance modeling and experimental verifi-
cation. In 2017 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE) 2017 Oct 1 (pp. 419-424). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE.2017.8095813.
[105] Saha J, Singh RK, Panda SK. Three-Phase Matrix-Based Isolated AC-DC Converter for Battery Energy Storage System.
805 In2021 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems (PEDG) 2021 Jun
28 (pp. 1-8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PEDG51384.2021.9494235.
[106] C4AF, Radial, 2 or 4 Leads, 250 – 500 VAC, for Harsh Environment AC Filtering,” KEMET Electronics Corporation.
Jul 2020.
[107] C4AE, Radial, 2 or 4 Leads, 450 – 1,100 VDC for DC Link”, KEMET Electronics Corporation. Mar 2020.
810 [108] März M, Schletz A, Eckardt B, Egelkraut S, Rauh H. Power electronics system integration for electric and hybrid vehicles.
In 2010 6th International Conference on Integrated Power Electronics Systems 2010 Mar 16 (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
[109] Liu Y, Wang H, Huang M, Zha X, Zhu G. Simplified power loss model for aluminum electrolytic capacitors in single-phase
inverters. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2019 Sep 26;35(5):4452-6.
[110] Datasheets. Aluminium Electrolytic Capacitors KEMET Electronics Corporation.
815 kemet.com/en/us/capacitors/aluminum. accessed Aug 30, 2021.
[111] Saha J, Subramanium A, Panda SK. Design of Integrated Medium Frequency Transformer (iMFT) for Dual-Active-Bridge
(DAB) Based Solid-State-Transformers. In 2021 IEEE 12th Energy Conversion Congress Exposition-Asia (ECCE-Asia)
2021 May 24 (pp. 893-898). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE-Asia49820.2021.9479113.
[112] Aluminum Electrolytic Capacitor Application Guide. Cornell Dubilier. www.cde.com/resources/catalogs/AEappGUIDE.pdf.
820 accessed Aug 30 2021.
[113] Farhadi M, Abapour M, Sabahi M. Failure analysis and reliability evaluation of modulation techniques for
neutral point clamped inverters—A usage model approach. Engineering Failure Analysis. 2017 Jan 1;71:90-104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.06.010.
[114] Reliability Data Handbook. IEC Standard 62 380:2004(E). 2004.
825 [115] RMIL-HDBK-217F Notice 2. Military Handbook—Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment. Department of Defense
(DoD). 1995 Feb 28.
[116] Harms JW. Revision of MIL-HDBK-217, reliability prediction of electronic equipment. In 2010
Proceedings-Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS) 2010 Jan 25 (pp. 1-3). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/RAMS.2010.5448046.
830 [117] Goel A, Graves RJ. Electronic system reliability: Collating prediction models. IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials
Reliability. 2006 Aug 14;6(2):258-65. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDMR.2006.876570.
[118] Ishizaka A, Labib A. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert systems with applications.
2011 Oct 1;38(11):14336-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143.
[119] Saha J, Gorla NB, Panda SK. Analytical Expression-Based Modulation for Soft-Switched Matrix-Based Dual-Active-
835 Bridge (S2MB-DAB) Single-Phase AC-DC Converter. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics.
2021 Dec 14. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2021.3135630.
[120] Bayer B, Marian A. Innovative measures for integrating renewable energy in the German medium-voltage grids. Energy
reports. 2020 Nov 1;6:336-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.12.028.
[121] Verdugo C, Candela JI, Blaabjerg F, Rodriguez P. Three-phase isolated multimodular converter in renewable energy
840 distribution systems. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2019 Jan 25;8(1):854-65.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2895465.
[122] Chen L, Deng X, Xia F, Chen H, Liu C, Chen Q, Yang J. A Techno-Economic Sizing Approach for Medium-
Low Voltage DC Distribution System. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity. 2021 Aug 4;31(8):1-6.

27
 https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2021.3101773.
845 [123] Chen W, Rong P, Lu Z. Snubberless bidirectional DC–DC converter with new CLLC resonant tank
featuring minimized switching loss. IEEE Transactions on industrial electronics. 2009 Dec 1;57(9):3075-86.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2009.2037099.
[124] Zahid ZU, Dalala ZM, Chen R, Chen B, Lai JS. Design of bidirectional DC–DC resonant converter for
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) applications. IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification. 2015 Sep 2;1(3):232-44.
850 https://doi.org/10.1109/TTE.2015.2476035.
[125] Kim HS, Baek JW, Ryu MH, Kim JH, Jung JH. The high-efficiency isolated AC–DC converter using the three-phase
interleaved LLC resonant converter employing the Y-connected rectifier. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2013
Nov 13;29(8):4017-28. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2013.2290999.
[126] Jung JH, Kim HS, Ryu MH, Baek JW. Design methodology of bidirectional CLLC resonant converter for high-
855 frequency isolation of DC distribution systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2012 Aug 15;28(4):1741-55.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2213346.
[127] Wang CS, Zhang SH, Wang YF, Chen B, Liu JH. A 5-kW isolated high voltage conversion ratio bidirectional CLTC
resonant DC–DC converter with wide gain range and high efficiency. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2018 Apr
4;34(1):340-55. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2018.2823082.
860 [128] Hu Y, Li Z, Zhang H, Zhao C, Gao F, Luo L, Luan K, Wang P, Li Y. High-frequency-link current stress optimization of
cascaded H-bridge-based solid-state transformer with third-order harmonic voltage injection. IEEE Journal of Emerging
and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2020 Jan 9;9(1):1027-38. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2020.2965232.
[129] Liu T, Yang X, Chen W, Xuan Y, Li Y, Huang L, Hao X. High-efficiency control strategy for 10-kV/1-MW
solid-state transformer in PV application. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2020 Apr 13;35(11):11770-82.
865 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2020.2984685.
[130] Bhawal S, Chakraborty SS, Hatua K. Dynamic Modeling and Closed Loop Control of a Solid State Transformer (SST)
based on Series Resonant Converter (SRC). IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2021
Jun 14. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2021.3088238.
[131] Zengin S, Boztepe M. A novel current modulation method to eliminate low-frequency harmonics in single-stage
870 dual active bridge AC–DC converter. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 2019 Feb 15;67(2):1048-58.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2019.2898597.
[132] Guo Z, Han X. Control Strategy of AC-DC Converter Based on Dual Active Bridge With Minimum
Current Stress and Soft Switching. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2022 Feb 25;37(9):10178-89.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2022.3153626.
875 [133] Wang H, Zhang Y, Sun Y, Zheng M, Liang X, Zhang G, Tan K, Feng J. Topology and control method of a single-
cell matrix-type solid-state transformer. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2019 Sep
11;8(3):2302-12. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2940514.
[134] Sha D, Zhang D, Zhang J. A single-stage dual-active-bridge AC–DC converter employing mode tran-
sition based on real-time calculation. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics. 2021 Feb 9;36(9):10081-8.
880 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2021.3058143.
[135] Saha J, Gorla NB, Subramaniam A, Panda SK. Analysis of modulation and optimal design methodology for half-bridge
matrix-based dual-active-bridge (MB-DAB) AC–DC converter. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power
Electronics. 2021 Aug 24;10(1):881-94. https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2021.3107500.
[136] Liang C, Xu J, Luo L, Li Y, Qi Q, Gao P, Fu Y, Peng Y. Harmonic elimination using parallel delta-connected filtering
885 windings for converter transformers in HVDC systems. IEEE transactions on power delivery. 2016 Jun 13;32(2):933-41.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2016.2580378.
[137] Saha J, Kumar N, Panda SK. A Futuristic Silicon-Carbide (SiC) Based Electric-Vehicle Fast Charging/Discharging
(FC/dC) Station. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics. 2022 Nov 18.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2022.3223417
890 [138] Saha J. Selection of Submodule Topology in MVAC-LVDC Modular SST. InAnalysis, Optimization and Control of
Grid-Interfaced Matrix-Based Isolated AC-DC Converters 2022 (pp. 35-71). Springer, Singapore.

28

View publication stats