Click here to load reader

Analysis of the Effects of Duty Cycle Constraints

  • View
    16

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Text of Analysis of the Effects of Duty Cycle Constraints

Analysis of the Effects of Duty Cycle Constraintsin Multiple-Input Convertersfor Photovoltaic ApplicationsJunseok Song and Alexis KwasinskiDepartment of Electrical and Computer EngineeringThe University of Texas at AustinE-mail: [email protected], [email protected] - A multiple-input converter for photovoltaic-powered communication sites is analyzed. The study shows thatthe duty cycles of a multiple-input converter, which control thepower delivered by each source, may have practical limitationswhen each photovoltaic module attempts to achieve its ownmaximum power point at the same time. This paper discusses analternative circuit that has two coupled inductors in a commonoutput stage, which may enable the multiple-input converter toovercome the limited duty cycles. The relationship between theduty cycles and the power supplied by each input is derivedmathematically in order to theoretically analyze the effects givenby the limitations. Power budgeting with respect to each source isalso demonstrated with simulations.I. INTRODUCTIONPhotovoltaic (PV) modules are a commonly suggestedsolution to power telecommunication systems, especially inisolated locations [1]. One advantage of PV modules isincreased system availability by providing a diverse powersupply. Hence, PV modules may contribute to meeting one ofthe most important requirements in telecom power systems.However, PV systems have a relatively high cost whichimpacts their widespread application.One alternative in order to reduce the financial impact ofPV systems cost is to have a modular and scalable design. Inthis approach, it is not necessary to initially install all the PVmodules required to meet the expected load for a site's life,but PV modules could be added as the load grows. Althoughthis goal seems to be trivial as more PV modules are added,practical issues make adding PV modules non-trivial. Themain issue is that any given PV module usually stays on themarket for only a few years before being discontinued. Thus,it is likely that a different model of solar panels will need to bechosen if a plant's solar generation capacity is to be increased.Moreover, even if the goal is not to increase the plant capacity,the short commercialized life of PV modules affectmaintenance and repair planning as most PV manufacturersreserve the right to replace discontinued PV modules withdifferent models of that originally purchased [2], [3].If the system is designed with a centralized architecturewith a single converter for the entire PV array with differentPV module models, then the overall performance of thesystem is that of the PV module model with the worstcharacteristics. One alternative is to have individual convertersfor each group ofPV modules of the same model. In this way,the varying maximum power point (MPP) of the different PVmodule models could be tracked and overall performancewould not be affected. However, this tends to be a costineffective solution.Another approach to integrate several different PVmodules is to use multiple-input converters (MICs) [1]. Thismethod has the advantage of being more cost effective thanhaving separate converter modules for each solar panel,without affecting planning flexibility. However, MICs havelimitations on the duty cycles [4]-[6]; with forward-conducting-bidirectional-blocking (FCBB) switches, the dutycycle of each leg is affected by the duty cycles of all other legswith a higher input voltage [7]. Hence, the power budgeting ofMICs should be considered carefully in order to achieve MPPfor each PV module. Past research on power budgeting wasperformed on MICs which did not have duty cycle limitations[1] or which had other inputs other than PV modules [8]-[10].To determine the effects of duty cycle limitations in MICs forPV applications, this paper analyzes a MIC that only has PVmodules as power sources. Analysis is conducted with thederivation of equations in order to verify the effects of dutycycle constraints when each module attempts to reach its MPP.MATLAB simulations examine the theoretical analysis andshow the effects given by these limitations. The feasibility ofMPP tracking with the limited duty cycles is also exploredusing a proposed circuit which has two coupled inductors inthe output stage.The paper is organized as follows. Section II analyzes thelimitations of a multiple-input single ended primary inductorconverter (SEPIC) that can both step-up and step-down theinput voltage. Section III discusses an alternative circuit toovercome the limited duty cycles and finally, in Section IV,the simulation results and conclusions of the study arediscussed.II. ANALYSIS OF A MULTIPLE-INPUT CONVERTERAs shown in Fig. 1, the analysis is conducted with amultiple-input SEPIC because its buck and boost characteristicallows tracking the entire voltage-current (V-I) or voltage-power (V-P) curve of a PV module.(6)(4)(7)(5)(3)Vclt: =- =loutR{ILl(1 - DUff) - Duff(hz + ld = 0hz(1 - Dzet t) - Dzeff(ILl +h) =0-VcR + DD(ILl + hz + h) =0{ILl(1- Dl) - D1(hz + h) =0 1 - (Dz - D1)) - (Dz - D1)(ILl + h) =0R + (1 - Dz)(hl + lcz + h) =0When (4) is substituted in (3), it yieldsThe first two equations of(5) can be combined intoWhen the third equation of (5) is compared with (6), arelationship of li. and lout can be verified as follows.With the assumption Vj > Vb the effective duty cycles in (3)can be substituted by(1)iL1 L1 iC1 C1 qo-. -.ic2 C2 -.+L C VoutiCn -.h, tFig. I . A multiple-input SEPleAssuming ideal components and a continuous conductionmode of operation, the relationship between the input andoutput can be represented from [8], [II] aswhere DWett is each input's effective duty cycle, i.e., its ownduty cycle less than that of the input leg with the nextimmediate higher input voltage. An example of thecharacteristics of the switching functions and the existence ofan effective duty cycle DWet t is shown in Fig. 2 for a two-input converter with FCBB switches. In this figure, ql and q2represent the control signals ofthe FCBB switches.In this study, a two-input SEPIC was considered for theanalysis. The dynamic equations resulting from applyingKirchhoffs current law at one node of each capacitor in Fig. Iare(2)As shown below, (6) and (7) can be used to represent lout withthe currents from each input.(8)To simplify the study, it was assumed that all components areideal and the converter is operating in continuous conductionmode. In addition, it was also assumed that V1 is higher thanV2 and hence D(i)ett is defined as shown in Fig. 2.Since average steady-state current through any capacitor iszero, the currents of the averaged model of (2) results inWhen Vout is multiplied to both sides of (8), the output powercan be derived asTo analyze the relationship between the output power and theduty cycles of each input, (1) uses the definitions shown in (4)to derive Vout in the double-input case as0 1T II I0 2T II I I01effT II I II 0 2effT II I I Itttt(10)The output power Pout can be represented with the inputvoltages and currents when (10) substitutes Vout in (9).Fig. 2. An example operation of DWell(It is assumed that V1 > V2)(11)With the definitions of the input and output power,Equation (13) and (14) indicate that the power supplied byeach input is not only affected by its own duty cycle, but alsoby those of the other inputs. Fig. 3, computer representationsconducted with MATLAB, supports the previous theoreticalanalysis; as shown, the values of P1 and Pz vary with thevalues of both D1 and Dz. For instance, in order to attain 200watts for P1 and 160 watts for Pz, the values of D1 and Dz canbe set as 0.30 and 0.73 respectively.Moreover, (13) and (14) establish the fact that the MPPcannot be tracked if the required effective duty cycles in bothinput legs are more than 0.5. For example, when both inputsneed 0.6 of effective duty cycle to achieve MPP, required Dzbecomes 1.2- according to (4) - which is an impossible value.This example depicts the theoretical limitation that seems tooccur when both inputs of a two-input converter may seem todemand a sum of effective duty cycles over 1.0. When thesimulation is extended to a three-input case, the maximumeffective duty cycle of each input leg should be limited below0.33 in order to avoid limitations, or even less if one of threeinputs requires an effective duty cycle above this value.Since the control of the power supplied by each input leg isaffected by the duty cycles of the other input legs, theequivalent resistance seen by each source is also affected byother inputs. As indicated in (12) and represented in Fig. 4, thetotal output power is the sum of the power provided by eachinput. To calculate the equivalent resistance seen from each(15)(16): Pout_.- loul--+MIC Voul12--11- +Req1 V1 : Pi12- +Req2 Vz : P2Pz :- V2 +.- -11Pi :- Vi +.-Fig. 5. Equivalentresistanceseen by each sourceFig. 4. Simplified schematicof two-input SEPleIn order to achieve the MPP, the equivalent resistanceshould be designed to meet the point where the PV moduleproduces maximum power. Fig. 6 shows an example of theequivalent resistance that implies maximum power, i.e., at thecurrent (4.9 A) and voltage (26 V), the output power (127.4 W)becomes the greatest. In this example, the equivalentresistance is 5.31 ohms. It is also possible to find differentmatching resistances for different PV modules connected atdifferent inputs to attain maximum power with a MIC. Thispoint is introduced and discussed in the following section.source, the circuit in Fig. 4 can be divided into two circuitswhich are shown in Fig. 5. Equation (15) and (16) show thecalculated equivalent resistance in terms of duty cycles in bothinputs.(13)(14)(12)D (Vou/ _ V1VoutDz )1 R R(1- Dz)P1 = (Dz - D1) - 1)Pz = Pout - P1the power supplied by each input can be derived asP1 vs Duty Ratio (D1,D2) P2 vs Duty Ratio (D1,D2} - V-I Curve V-PCurve......................