256 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 45, NO.

2, APRIL 1998

A New Space-Vector-Modulated Control

for a Unidirectional Three-Phase
Switch-Mode Rectifier
Rong-Jie Tu and Chern-Lin Chen, Member, IEEE

Abstract— A unidirectional three-phase switch-mode rectifier

that delivers sinusoidal input currents in phase with the corre-
sponding input phase voltages is proposed and analyzed in this
paper. In the proposed topology, three ac switches are placed
before the bridge rectifier and, respectively, across two power
lines. A simple control scheme combing space-vector modulation
and hysteresis current control is presented. Sinusoidal input line
currents are observed in experimental results.
Index Terms— Hysteresis current control, space-vector modu- (a)
lation, switch-mode rectifier.

I. INTRODUCTION

O FF-LINE switch-mode ac/dc and ac/dc/ac power con-

verters have historically employed full-wave bridge rec-
tifiers and simple capacitor filters to power the unregulated
dc buses. Due to the side effects of these nonlinear and
storage elements, the input line currents are narrow pulses
with rich harmonics, resulting in a notoriously poor power
factor. This dramatically increases the utility transmission
power losses and causes harmonic pollution of power lines.
Consequently, switch-mode rectifiers (SMR’s) have gained
increasing research interest recently for improving the power
factor deterioration.
According to the number of input line phases, the SMR’s
can be classified into two groups: single-phase SMR’s and
three-phase SMR’s. Owing to its simple control design and
excellent performance, the single-phase boost-type SMR has
made its popularity in the applications where the power
rating is small ( 2 kW) [1], [2]. However, in large power
applications, the three-phase boost-type SMR is effective and
dominant for its power handling capability. Conventionally,
a three-phase boost-type SMR consists of six switches with
anti-paralleled diodes as shown in Fig. 1(a). This system is
ideally applicable to a dc-linked ac motor drive since it draws
sinusoidal input currents and controls the dc bus voltage.
However, since six switches must be controlled individually, it
needs a more complicated control circuit and six corresponding
driving circuits for the switches. This increases the total system
cost dramatically.
Manuscript received September 24, 1996; revised April 18, 1997. This work
was supported in part by the National Science Council, R.O.C.
The authors are with the Power Electronics Laboratory, Department of
Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
(e-mail: clchen@cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0278-0046(98)00897-1.
0278–0046/98$10.00  1998 IEEE
(b)
Fig. 1. Conventional three-phase boost-type switch-mode rectifiers.
Another three-phase SMR is presented by Kolar et al. [3].
This approach is basically a bridge rectifier with three Y-
connected ac switches on the ac side of the bridge as shown in
Fig. 1(b). Despite the limitation of unidirectional power flow,
a lower system cost is possible due to its relatively simpler
structure. A main drawback of the circuit is the relatively
high conduction losses since the phase currents must follow
through two series-connected ac switches when they turn on.
Moreover, appropriate control strategy is not presented to
make full use of the merits of the new topology.
A space-vector modulation method for a three-phase SMR
has been proposed recently [4]. The input phase voltages are
divided into six 60 intervals where no sign change occurs.
An excellent power factor is obtained by controlling only
two currents in each interval, but this control scheme needs
to process complicated computations with complex numbers.
High-speed microprocessors or digital signal processors are
required. Again, this will increase the complexity and total
cost of the system.
Another simple hysteresis current control scheme for the
three-phase SMR is discussed in several papers [5], [6]. The
input phase current is individually controlled to track the
corresponding template current waveform. It is capable of
delivering nearly sinusoidal current waveforms with unity
power factor. However, the switching pattern is random. This
increases the switching losses and deteriorates the system
TU AND CHEN: UNIDIRECTIONAL THREE-PHASE SWITCH-MODE RECTIFIER
Fig. 2. The proposed three-phase boost-type switch-mode rectifier.
performance. Moreover, this method cannot be directly applied
to the unidirectional SMR.
This paper presents a low-cost high-performance three-
phase unidirectional SMR system. The power circuit shown
in Fig. 2 is investigated. It consists of a bridge rectifier with
three delta-connected ac switches on the ac side of the bridge.
Since the ac switches are placed on the ac side, the deadtime
consideration to prevent two switches of the same bridge
leg from conducting simultaneously is not necessary. Since
the phase currents flow through only one ac switch at the
storage phase of the boost inductors, it has relatively lower
conduction losses than Fig. 1(b). The operation principle with
simulation verification is described in the following sections.
A simple control strategy combining space-vector modulation
and hysteresis current control is proposed. Excellent power
factor is observed in the experimental results. Moreover,
the proposed control strategy has successfully reduced the
switching losses by 33%.
II. PROPOSED SMR TOPOLOGY
Fig. 2 illustrates the unidirectional three-phase boost-type
SMR discussed in this paper. In this approach, the convention-
ally used six switches are replaced by three delta-connected
ac switches located between the boost inductors and bridge
rectifier. Since the bridge rectifier is used, only unidirectional
power flow is allowed. The proposed approach has its inherent
limitation in the applications where bidirectional power flow
is important, such as high power motor drive. However, many
currently commercially available general-purpose inverters do
not contain built-in SMR’s; instead they offer an optional
choice to meet the corresponding power factor (PF) regula-
tions. Thus they can keep costs minimal in the markets where
PF regulations are not imposed yet and can meet the related PF
requirements by offering an optional PF choice. The proposed
approach offers an attractive choice in these applications, since
it only adds three ac switches and boost inductors to the
original circuit. The original circuit is not affected if the SMR
option is not ordered.
Since only three ac switches are to be controlled, it needs
only three driving circuits for the corresponding ac switches.
Moreover, since the delta-connected ac switches are placed on
the ac side, the deadtime consideration to prevent two switches
of the same bridge leg from conducting simultaneously is
not necessary in this topology. It will simplify the control
design greatly. An ac switch can be constituted by one or
two power transistors [7]. It can conduct bidirectional currents
when turned on and block ac voltages when turned off. Fig. 3
257
Fig. 3. Constitution methods of ac switches.
Fig. 4. The operational cycle is divided into six 60 intervals according to
the phase voltage polarity.
illustrates some methods to constitute an ac switch. This paper
adopts the first method since its driving is easier than the
second one and its conduction loss is less than the third one.
The operational cycle is divided into six 60 intervals
according to the input phase voltage polarity. As shown in
Fig. 4, no polarity change occurs in each interval. Each interval
contains two positive and one negative phase voltages or
one positive and two negative phase voltages. The ac switch
connecting the two phases of same voltage sign is set normally
open in every interval, since it will not effect the operation of
the SMR (which will be explained later).
Take interval , where and are positive and is
negative, for example. Since the line currents are controlled
to be in phase with the corresponding phase voltages, no
current will flow through the diodes , , and .
is set normally open, resulting in the subtopology in Fig. 5(a).
According to the conducting states of and , there are
four modes of operation in the example interval as shown in
Fig. 5(b)–(e).
Mode 1— ON, ON: As shown in Fig 5(b), , ,
and are short-circuited through the boost inductors. Currents
flow from phases A and B, through the ac switches and the
boost inductors, into phase C. All of the six diodes are reverse
biased. At the same time, the buck capacitor discharges and
supplies current to the load. By the basic circuit theory, we
have
(1)
Mode 2— ON, OFF: Fig. 5(c) illustrates the resul-
tant subcircuit of this mode. flows through the diodes
and , supplies the load current, and flows back to phase
C. The output capacitor must encounter the instantaneous
unbalance between the input power and the output power. It
258 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 45, NO. 2, APRIL 1998

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Fig. 5. Modes of operation in interval I where V a and Vb are positive and Vc is negative.

charges if is greater than the load current; it discharges can safely set normally open without deteriorating the
otherwise. Diodes and are forward biased. Phases A performance of the proposed SMR. Input currents in phase
and C are shorted through the inductors and . By the with the corresponding input voltages can be acquired by
basic circuit theory, we have selecting proper operation modes in interval . That implies
unity power factor. Since one of the three ac switches is set
(2) normally open in each interval, the switching loss is reduced
by roughly 33%.
(3)

Mode 3— OFF, ON: Fig. 5(d) illustrates the resul- III. SPACE-VECTOR MODULATION
tant subcircuit of this mode. Mode 3 is similar to Mode 2, In this section, selection of appropriate operation modes
except that phases A and B are exchanged. Diodes and by the space-vector concept is described. With the concept
are forward biased. It is clear that of the space vector, it is convenient to represent three-phase
quantities (voltages and currents) as a space vector
(4)
(8)
(5)
where
Mode 4— OFF, OFF: As shown in Fig. 5(e), both
phases A and B are connected to positive terminals of the
output capacitor. and flow through the diodes, charge
the output capacitor, and supply the load current. By the basic Consequently, voltages before the rectifier bridge , ,
circuit theory, we have and can be represented as a voltage vector

(6) (9)

(7)
There are another four operation modes in the interval if
turns on. Neglecting the conduction voltage drops of
semiconductor devices, three of them are identical to Mode
1 and the fourth is identical to Mode 4. Therefore, we
Applying (9) into the four operation modes, four space
voltage vectors are acquired in the interval as illustrated in
Table I, where signifies normally open. Consequently, there
are 24 voltage vectors in the whole operational cycle according
to the conducting states of the switches. Some of them are
identical. Fig. 5 shows the total resultant seven voltage vectors,
TU AND CHEN: UNIDIRECTIONAL THREE-PHASE SWITCH-MODE RECTIFIER 259

TABLE I
VOLTAGE VECTORS ACCORDING TO THE OPERATION MODES IN THE INTERVAL I

where
for
Fig. 6. Voltage vectors corresponding to the voltages before bridge rectifier
for (10) Va0 , Vb0 , and Vc0 .

Also, the input phase voltages and currents can be repre-

sented as space vectors
(11)
(12)
If the phase quantities are balanced three-phase sine waves,
the corresponding vector trajectories form a circuit on the
complex plane. The derivative of the current vector can be
written as

(13)

where

Equation (13) states that the current derivative vector is

a function of the voltage vectors and (i.e., the oper-
ation modes). The proper voltage vector can be decided
according to the desired current derivative vectors and
the given voltage vector . Then the appropriate conducting
states of the switches can be decided. However, this needs
complicated computations with complex numbers. A high-
speed microprocessor or digital signal processor must be used
to handle these computations.
To design a simple control strategy, (13) must be further
simplified. Due to three-phase balanced input, the input current
vector in the example interval can be rewritten as
(14)
Therefore, the current error vector can be defined as
(15)
where is the current command vector. The trajectories of
form a circle synchronous with the input voltage vector .
If the phase current errors and can be limited
within a preset band , the current error vector is limited in
the rhombus as shown in Fig 6. There are four voltage vectors
in interval to limit the current error vector within the
desired area. To select the proper voltage vector, the current
errors and are fed into the hysteresis comparators.
If the input current is greater than the preset hysteresis band
, the binary signals and are “0.” If the input current
is smaller than the preset hysteresis band , binary signals
and are “1.” When the current error vector meets the
hysteresis bond, the voltage vector is selected according to
Table II to draw the current error vector toward the origin
Fig. 7. The proposed control strategy.
TABLE II
VECTOR SELECTION IN INTERVAL
point. It can be mathematically proven that the current error
can be limited in the rhombus area if and only if the voltage
vector is selected according to Table II under the condition
that where is the peak value of the input line
voltage.
Digital simulation with ideal elements is made to verify
the deduced control strategy (see Fig. 7). The hysteresis band
is set to one-tenth of the peak value of the input currents.
Fig. 8(a) shows that the input currents are controlled within
the hysteresis band. Since three phases are balanced, the third
phase current is the negative sum of and . However, the
maximum current error of is two times . Fig. 8(b) shows
that the current error vector is limited within the predicted
rhombus area. One necessary condition of this control strategy
is that the output voltage must be greater than 1.5 times of the
peak line-to-line voltage, which will be too high for some
applications. However, the proposed control strategy still can
work, even without satisfying the wanted condition, with some
sacrifice of performance. Fig. 8(c) illustrates the result current
error vector trajectory with . It is seen that the
current vector outsteps the predicted rhombus area. However,
since the current derivative vector is smaller, the number of
260 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 45, NO. 2, APRIL 1998

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 8. The simulation results.

total switching is smaller than that in Fig. 8(b). To get the

same current harmonics, the hysteresis band can be set to a
smaller value than that of Fig. 8(b).

IV. EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM AND RESULTS

A three-phase boost-type SMR with the proposed control
strategy is implemented and tested in the laboratory. The
laboratory model is constrained by a limited university re-
search budget to low power ratings of 500-W output. The
experimental load is a pure resistance load. However, the
results reported here are applicable to other types of load and
have universal applications by resorting to the usual scaling
law.
Fig. 9 shows the block diagram of the proposed control
scheme. Current command is obtained by multiplying the
input phase voltage and the error voltage , which is obtained Fig. 9. Block diagram of the proposed control strategy.
from the voltage compensation loop. The frequency response
of the voltage compensation is far lower than 120 Hz. As
the line frequency is concerned, can be treated as a dc of binary signals: signs of the input voltages , , and ,
value. Therefore, if the input current is controlled to follow the and the signals , , and . The signs of the input voltages
current command, it follows the input voltage in its waveform , , and divide the input voltage into six 60 intervals
and follows the error voltage in its magnitude. according to Fig. 5. The binary signals , , and are
The input currents are controlled to follow the current obtained by feeding the current errors into the hysteresis
command by selecting the appropriate voltage vector . The comparators. If the input current is greater than the current
desired voltage vectors are selected by the EPROM switching command, the digital signal is “0.” Otherwise, it is “1.” The
table outputs. The inputs of the EPROM consist of two groups outputs of the hysteresis comparators determine the desired
TU AND CHEN: UNIDIRECTIONAL THREE-PHASE SWITCH-MODE RECTIFIER 261

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 10. The experimental results.

TABLE III input current follows the corresponding current command by

STATES OF SWITCHES Sbc, Sca, AND Sab ACCORDING TO THE SIGNS
OF INPUT PHASE VOLTAGES AND THE OUTPUTS OF HYSTERESIS
voltage vectors (i.e., operation modes) in the corresponding
interval. However, for the simplicity of hardware design, the
mapping between the voltage vectors and states of the ac
switches is incorporated directly in the switching table as
shown in Table III. For example, if , modulation and hysteresis current control. To control the
i.e., in interval , and , then is
selected. That is, and are triggered. From the above
discussion, and will grow up to follow the current
commands until another voltage vector is selected.
A sinusoidal input current in phase with the correspond-
ing input phase voltage is obtained as shown in Fig. 10(a).
Excellent power factor is observed. Fig. 10(b) shows that the
the hysteresis control. Fig. 10(c) shows one of the gate driving
signals. It is seen that the ac switch is set normally open in one-
third of the operation cycle. Therefore, the switching losses
are reduced by 33%.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a space-vector-modulated control strat-
egy for an unidirectional three-phase boost-type SMR. Re-
markable advantages are obtained.
1) Employing only three delta-connected ac switches, the
presented approach makes the operational principle clear
and gives the possibility of simple control design. Since
the ac switches are placed on the ac side, the deadtime
consideration to prevent two switches of the same bridge
leg from conducting simultaneously is not necessary.
2) Since the phase currents flow through only one ac switch
at the storage phase of the boost inductors, the presented
approach has relatively lower conduction losses than
Fig. 1(b).
3) The proposed control scheme combines the space vector
input currents, a simple EPROM switching table instead
of microprocessors or digital signal processors (DSP’s)
is used. This makes the hardware design simple and
inexpensive.
4) Only two of the three ac switches are controlled in each
interval. The overall switching power losses are reduced
by 33%.
262 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 45, NO. 2, APRIL 1998
5) The proposed approach offers an attractive choice as an
external optional SMR. It only adds three ac switches
and boost inductors to the original circuit. The original
circuit is not affected if the option is not ordered.
Nevertheless, the proposed approach has some potential
disadvantages. The first is that the diodes used in the rectifier
bridge must be fast-recovery type. The second is that only
unidirectional power flow is allowed. The proposed approach
is not suitable in the applications where bidirectional power
flow is important, such as motor drives.
However, owing to its remarkable simplicity, excellent
performance, and lower cost, the proposed approach offers
an attractive choice of SMR for medium and large power
applications such as power supplies (UPS’s).
REFERENCES
[1] P. N. Enjeti and R. Martinez, “A high performance single phase ac to dc
rectifier with input power factor correction,” in IEEE APEC’93 Conf.
Proc., 1993, pp. 190–195.
[2] S. Manias, “Novel full bridge semicontrolled switch mode rectifier,”
Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 138, pt. B, no. 5, pp. 252–256, 1991.
[3] J. W. Kolar, H. Ertl, and F. C. Zach, “Realization considerations for
unidirectional three-phase PWM rectifier system with low effects on the
mains,” presented at the Int. Conf. on Power Electronics and Motion
Control, 1990.
[4] R. Wu, S. B. Dewan, and G. R. Slemon, “A PWM ac-to-dc converter
with fixed switching frequency,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 26,
pp. 880–885, Mar./Apr. 1990.
[5] B. T. Ooi, J. C. Salmon, J. W. Dixon, and A. B. Kulkarni, “A 3-phase
controlled current converter with leading power factor,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Applicat., vol. 23, pp. 78–84, Jan./Feb. 1987.
[6] J. W. Dixon, A. B. Kulkarni, M. Nishimoto, and B. T. Ooi, “Charac-
teristics of a controlled current PWM rectifier link,” in IEEE IAS Conf.
Proc., 1986, pp. 685–691.
[7] J. S. Lin, C. L. Chen, and C. Y. Lai, “A high-bandwidth PWM servo
amplifier the direct-drive-valve actuation system,” in IEEE APEC’93
Conf. Proc., 1993, pp. 328–332.
Rong-Jie Tu was born in Miao-Li, Taiwan, R.O.C.,
in 1968. He received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering from the National Sun Yat-Sen Uni-
versity in 1991. Presently, he is working toward
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at the
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
His current research interests are in the areas of
switch-mode rectifiers and induction motor drives.
Chern-Lin Chen (S’86–M’90) was born in Taipei,
Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1962. He received the B.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.,
in 1984 and 1987, respectively.
He has been with the Department of Electrical
Engineering at the National Taiwan University since
1987, where he is currently a Professor. His current
research interests are in the analysis, design, and
application of power electronics converters, and in
motor drives.