6
4307 Comparison of Losses in Multilevel Converters for Aerospace Applications K.D. Papastergiou, P.W. Wheeler and J.C. Clare Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom Abstract— Aerospace applications require light, efficient and reliable power conversion. Multilevel converters have some potential advantages due to their lower output har- monic distortion and also the lower device voltage rating requirements. This paper compares 2-level and 3-level solu- tions for an application where the desired output frequency is high and low THD is required. A conventional (2-level) in- verter with sinusoidal modulation is compared with a 3-level converter in terms of power losses and harmonic distortion of the output waveforms. The modulation strategy plays an important role in the switching power loss distribution as it defines the way the switches are operated. The losses are evaluated with MOSFET and IGBT switches and the effect of the modulation strategy on the THD is also examined. I. I NTRODUCTION Multilevel converters are known for their advantages of lower voltage rating of the semiconductor devices as well as for the reduced number of switch transitions in comparison with a standard inverter. The investigation and quantification of these benefits is relative to the application type and converter specifications. The impact of the modulation type and semiconductor technology on the converter performance is investigated in this paper. The effect of the modulation strategy on the harmonic distortion of multilevel converters has been extensively researched [1] [2] [3] in the past. Space vector modulation generally offers the benefit of lower THD whereas the switching and conduction losses also depend on the ap- plication type (load, switching frequency, voltage levels). In this paper the semiconductor switching and conduc- tion power loss in a multilevel converter are evaluated and compared with those of a conventional (2-level) inverter. The application examined in this study is a high output frequency (1500Hz), 15kW motor supply operating from a 270-450V DC source. Due the nature of the motor load (low winding inductance) a low harmonic distortion (THD) of the output current is also required to limit the ripple current and motor losses to acceptable levels; hence THD figures are also examined. This study evaluates the losses and total harmonic dis- tortion with two different modulation strategies, namely a sinusoidal pulse width modulation (PWM) and space vector modulation (SVM). A comprehensive comparison between space vector and carrier based PWM and a reference for further reading is given in [4]. Furthermore, different IGBT technologies are evaluated with regards to their switching and conduction power losses. An analyti- cal method for calculating losses in multilevel converters has been presented in [5]. To perform a comparison of the two topologies, a base- line operating condition of 1500Hz output frequency and a synchronous carrier of 21kHz (14 times the fundamental) has been used. The topologies have also been compared on equal THD and equal power loss basis. Due to the lower device voltages of multilevel con- verters and the high operating frequency requirements of the application MOSFETs have also been considered as candidate devices to compare with an IGBT solution. A single 600V/94A device has been evaluated as well as a pair of two paralleled devices. II. SIMULATION MODELS A conventional and a multilevel inverter with sinusoidal and space vector modulation were modelled in SABER and PSIM. Custom IGBT models were built in SABER MAST code in order to extend the existing behavioral model and add power loss calculation capability to ac- count for the switching, conduction and diode recovery losses. The SABER results were used to validate the PSIM built in power switch model. PSIM was found to be a fast simulation engine with negligible sacrifice in accuracy and therefore it was used to produce the following simulation results. Figure 1depicts 3-level NPC converter along with the basic sinusoidal PWM waveforms. This topology employs more switches than a typical 2-level inverter but has the advantage of lower semiconductor voltage rating and an average device switching frequency that is half of that in a 2-level inverter. As a result, multilevel converters employ lower rated IGBTs with lower turn on and turn off as well as diode recovery power losses. One of the features of the modulation scheme illustrated in fig. 1 is that the power losses of the semiconductors are not balanced across the devices. The outer devices commutate predominately near the peaks of the modulating wave which, with a high power factor load, corresponds also to the peak in the current waveform. Hence the switching losses of the outer devices are considerably greater than the inner devices. The converter load considered in this study is a 15kW high speed motor with low winding inductance. Since the study is concerned with converter steady state operation the motor is modelled as an R-L combination in series with a back EMF whose value is given by Eq.1. BEMF = EMFconst · 6 · ω p V rms ll (1) where EMFconst is the motor back EMF (BEMF) constant and p is the number of poles. The system 978-1-4244-1668-4/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE

[IEEE 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - PESC 2008 - Rhodes, Greece (2008.06.15-2008.06.19)] 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - Comparison of losses

  • Upload
    jc

  • View
    215

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: [IEEE 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - PESC 2008 - Rhodes, Greece (2008.06.15-2008.06.19)] 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - Comparison of losses

4307

Comparison of Losses in Multilevel Convertersfor Aerospace Applications

K.D. Papastergiou, P.W. Wheeler and J.C. ClareDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

Abstract— Aerospace applications require light, efficientand reliable power conversion. Multilevel converters havesome potential advantages due to their lower output har-monic distortion and also the lower device voltage ratingrequirements. This paper compares 2-level and 3-level solu-tions for an application where the desired output frequencyis high and low THD is required. A conventional (2-level) in-verter with sinusoidal modulation is compared with a 3-levelconverter in terms of power losses and harmonic distortionof the output waveforms. The modulation strategy plays animportant role in the switching power loss distribution asit defines the way the switches are operated. The losses areevaluated with MOSFET and IGBT switches and the effectof the modulation strategy on the THD is also examined.

I. INTRODUCTION

Multilevel converters are known for their advantagesof lower voltage rating of the semiconductor devices aswell as for the reduced number of switch transitions incomparison with a standard inverter. The investigationand quantification of these benefits is relative to theapplication type and converter specifications. The impactof the modulation type and semiconductor technology onthe converter performance is investigated in this paper.

The effect of the modulation strategy on the harmonicdistortion of multilevel converters has been extensivelyresearched [1] [2] [3] in the past. Space vector modulationgenerally offers the benefit of lower THD whereas theswitching and conduction losses also depend on the ap-plication type (load, switching frequency, voltage levels).

In this paper the semiconductor switching and conduc-tion power loss in a multilevel converter are evaluated andcompared with those of a conventional (2-level) inverter.The application examined in this study is a high outputfrequency (1500Hz), 15kW motor supply operating froma 270-450V DC source. Due the nature of the motorload (low winding inductance) a low harmonic distortion(THD) of the output current is also required to limit theripple current and motor losses to acceptable levels; henceTHD figures are also examined.

This study evaluates the losses and total harmonic dis-tortion with two different modulation strategies, namelya sinusoidal pulse width modulation (PWM) and spacevector modulation (SVM). A comprehensive comparisonbetween space vector and carrier based PWM and areference for further reading is given in [4]. Furthermore,different IGBT technologies are evaluated with regards totheir switching and conduction power losses. An analyti-cal method for calculating losses in multilevel convertershas been presented in [5].

To perform a comparison of the two topologies, a base-line operating condition of 1500Hz output frequency and asynchronous carrier of 21kHz (14 times the fundamental)has been used. The topologies have also been comparedon equal THD and equal power loss basis.

Due to the lower device voltages of multilevel con-verters and the high operating frequency requirements ofthe application MOSFETs have also been considered ascandidate devices to compare with an IGBT solution. Asingle 600V/94A device has been evaluated as well as apair of two paralleled devices.

II. SIMULATION MODELS

A conventional and a multilevel inverter with sinusoidaland space vector modulation were modelled in SABERand PSIM. Custom IGBT models were built in SABERMAST code in order to extend the existing behavioralmodel and add power loss calculation capability to ac-count for the switching, conduction and diode recoverylosses. The SABER results were used to validate thePSIM built in power switch model. PSIM was foundto be a fast simulation engine with negligible sacrificein accuracy and therefore it was used to produce thefollowing simulation results.

Figure 1depicts 3-level NPC converter along with thebasic sinusoidal PWM waveforms. This topology employsmore switches than a typical 2-level inverter but has theadvantage of lower semiconductor voltage rating and anaverage device switching frequency that is half of that in a2-level inverter. As a result, multilevel converters employlower rated IGBTs with lower turn on and turn off as wellas diode recovery power losses. One of the features of themodulation scheme illustrated in fig. 1 is that the powerlosses of the semiconductors are not balanced across thedevices. The outer devices commutate predominately nearthe peaks of the modulating wave which, with a highpower factor load, corresponds also to the peak in thecurrent waveform. Hence the switching losses of the outerdevices are considerably greater than the inner devices.

The converter load considered in this study is a 15kWhigh speed motor with low winding inductance. Since thestudy is concerned with converter steady state operationthe motor is modelled as an R-L combination in serieswith a back EMF whose value is given by Eq.1.

BEMF = EMFconst ·√

6 · ωp

Vrmsl−l(1)

where EMFconst is the motor back EMF (BEMF)constant and p is the number of poles. The system

978-1-4244-1668-4/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE

Page 2: [IEEE 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - PESC 2008 - Rhodes, Greece (2008.06.15-2008.06.19)] 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - Comparison of losses

4308

Vdc

-Vdc

triangular carrierFundamental for Phase Leg A

t

tO O

O

R S T

SA1

SA2

SA3

SA4

Vin/2

Vin/2

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. 3-level inverter and the associated modulation waveforms

employs a simple current control loop where the referenceline current Iq is set according to:

Iq = Pout ·√

2√

3 · BEMFVrmsl−l

(2)

Where Pout is the required mechanical output powerand BEMF is the back-EMF of the motor at the requiredspeed.

Device turn-on and turn-off losses were calculatedfrom the manufacturer’s published data giving Eon andEoff as a function of current. These values were scaledpro-rata with voltage to account for the difference be-tween the datasheet test conditions and the DC linkvoltages considered in the study. Losses due to dioderecovery were included using manufacturer’s curves forErr against current. Conduction losses were determinedusing manufacturer’s curves for voltage drop as a functionof current. For some of the simulations, non-integerfrequency ratios were considered, with switching andmodulation frequencies chosen to give a defined peri-odicity for the current and voltage waveforms (typicallybetween one to 10 cycles of the fundamental). Care wastaken to average the losses over the required number offundamental cycles.

Care is also required in determining the THD values, ifnon-integer frequency ratios are considered which makesa Fourier approach inconvenient. Since the fundamentalfrequency is precisely known in simulation, a very sharpnotch filter can be employed in PSIM to extract thefundamental and exlude the distortion. The total RMS ofthe distortion is then determined by squaring and filtering.THD is then calculated from Eq. 3.

THD =Total harmonic RMS

Fundamental RMS(3)

where a Fourier analysis is used to determine the fun-damental RMS, again taking into account the periodicityof the waveforms for non-integer frequency ratio cases.

Three EUPEC IGBTs (a 600V and two 1200V) ofdifferent technology were tested as in Table I. The 600VIGBT can only be used with the three-level topology asits switches operate at half the supply voltage. Typically,a lower voltage semiconductor has a lower turn-on and

TABLE I

EVALUATED SEMICONDUCTOR SWITCHES

Semiconductor model Description

FF200R06KE3 (EUPEC) 62mm C-series 600V/200A

trench 3rd gen. IGBT

FF150R12KT3G (EUPEC) 62mm C-series 1200V/150A

fast trench 3rd gen. IGBT

high efficiency diode

FF150R12KS4 (EUPEC) 62mm C-series 1200V/150A

high freq. non-trench

2nd generation IGBT

APT94N60L2C3 (Microsemi) 600V/94A MOSFET

low RDSon(0.035Ohms@25oC)

turn-off energy loss and diode reverse recovery energy aswell as lower dynamic resistance. Hence it is expectedthat the 600V IGBT will perform better regarding powerlosses. The MOSFETs of Table I were also tested in placeof the 600V IGBTs as they were expected to yield lowerswitching losses at the investigated frequency.

The following testing process in simulation was fol-lowed:

• The two 1200V IGBTs are tested with the 2-leveltopology at the baseline conditions to find the onethat results in lower power losses.

• The 2-level with the ”best” 1200V device is testedfor losses and THD over the entire frequency range.

• The 3-level converter with the ”best” 1200V deviceis tested and the results are compared with thosetaken with a 600V IGBT.

• The 3-level is simulated with the ”better” chosenIGBT over the entire frequency range.

All tests assumed a 125oC junction operating tempera-ture.

III. SIMULATION RESULTS

A. Comparison of Semiconductors

The trench and non-trench 1200V devices have beenevaluated with the standard (2-level) inverter. The sim-ulation results appear in Fig. 2 and show that both thefast, non-trench and trench technology IGBTs exhibit the

Page 3: [IEEE 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - PESC 2008 - Rhodes, Greece (2008.06.15-2008.06.19)] 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - Comparison of losses

4309

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

FF150R12KS4 FF150R12KT3G

Pow

er L

oss

(W)

IGBT switching loss IGBT conduction Loss

Diode recovery loss Diode conduction loss

Fig. 2. 2-level power losses with non-trench (FF150R12KS4) andtrench (FF150R12KT3G) IGBTs at baseline conditions.

same total power losses. The fast device IGBT conductionlosses are higher (left bar in fig. 2) than those of the trenchdevice and the switching losses are lower. It is expectedthat if the carrier frequency is further increased the fastdevice will perform better than the trench.

The use of a lower rated IGBT with the 3-levelconverter is expected to result in reduction of powerlosses thanks to its lower Eon, Eoff and diode reverserecovery loss. In a three-level converter the individualdevice switching frequency is half of the carrier frequencyand this automatically undermines the benefit of the fastdevice and partially explains why the trench device per-forms better (fig. 3). In this circuit the conduction lossesare relatively more important than switching losses henceputting the trench technology in advantageous position.

The use of a 600V device in the three-level topol-ogy gave a further reduction of 25% in power losses.Regarding the inner-to-outer semiconductor power lossdistribution, fig. 3 shows a domination of the innerswitch conduction losses followed by significant outerswitch conduction losses. This is primarily due to theinner switches being naturally turned on for a greaterportion of the switching cycle than the outer switches.Furthermore, as has been explained in section II theswitching power losses of the outer semiconductors arehigher than those of the inner switches when sinusoidalmodulation is used. The power loss distribution shownhere is for natural sampling and may be changed if spacevector modulation is used which gives some additionalflexibility in switch utilization. The clamping diode lossesare always a small portion of the total losses and are notsignificantly affected by the semiconductor technologyalthough they are lower with 600V devices. It should benoted that in this application the power factor of the loadis nearly unity, hence the IGBT anti-parallel diode currentis negligible.

The voltage and current level requirements of the 3-level topology make MOSFETs a possible candidate asa device for the main switch [6]. Their better switchingperformance can offer a benefit at higher switching fre-

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

FF150R12KS4 FF150R12KT3G FF200R06KE3

Pow

er L

oss

(W)

Clamp diode conduction loss

Clamp diode recovery lossInner IGBT conduction loss

Inner IGBT switching loss

Outer IGBT conduction lossOuter IGBT switching loss

Fig. 3. 3-level power losses with non-trench (1200V/150A), trench(1200V/150A) and trench (600V/200A) IGBTs at baseline conditions.

quencies. However, the on-state voltage of a MOSFETwith suitable ratings for this application is generallyhigher than that of an IGBT with the added problem ofstrong temperature dependence. The channel resistanceRDSon of the MOSFET used was 0.035Ω at 25oC andmore than doubled (0.066Ω) at a junction temperatures of125oC. The simulated 3-level converter with MOSFETsdemonstrated 900W of total power loss at 125oC and just570W with the IGBTs at the same temperature.

Figure 4 presents the semiconductor power losses in a3-level topology with MOSFETs and a direct comparisonwith IGBTs. All semiconductors were evaluated with ajunction temperature of 125oC.

In the simulations employing single MOSFETs fig. 4(a)the conduction losses are nearly doubled in comparisonwith the IGBT solution. In particular the inner switchconduction losses are prohibitive when single MOSFETsare used.

The individual MOSFET has half the current rating ofthe IGBTs considered and hence paralleling two MOS-FET devices was investigated to produce the results shownin fig. 4(b). The power losses in fig. 4(b) are approxi-mately equivalent to those given by an IGBT (fig. 4(c))across the frequency range, with the lower switching lossbeing balanced by higher conduction losses. In this appli-cation there is no benefit in using MOSFETS, although ifmuch higher frequencies were envisaged it could becomea more attractive option.

B. Modulation Effect

The simulation results of the 2-level converter aresummarised in fig. 5. The space vector modulated inverterdemonstrates a THD superiority of approximately 2%across the entire examined frequency range. Furthermore,the total power losses increase with the switching fre-quency and approximately 80% of the power is dissipatedin IGBTs and 20% in diodes.

On the 3-level side the total power loss is reduced byalmost 250W when 600V IGBTs are used as illustratedin (fig. 6). Note that the losses shown here are for the

Page 4: [IEEE 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - PESC 2008 - Rhodes, Greece (2008.06.15-2008.06.19)] 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - Comparison of losses

4310

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

9.00

9.50

13.0

014

.00

15.0

016

.00

17.0

018

.00

19.0

020

.00

25.0

0

Carrier to fundamental freq. ratio

Po

wer

Lo

ss (

W)

o

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

9.00

9.50

13.0

014

.00

15.0

016

.00

17.0

018

.00

19.0

020

.00

25.0

050

.00

Carrier to fundamental freq. ratio

Po

wer

Lo

ss (

W)

(a)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

9.00

9.50

13.0

014

.00

15.0

016

.00

17.0

018

.00

19.0

020

.00

25.0

050

.00

Carrier to fundamental freq. ratio

Po

wer

Lo

ss (

W)

o

outer sw loss outer cond lossinner sw loss inner cond lossclamp diode rec loss clamp diode cond loss

(c)(b)

Fig. 4. 3-level power losses with MOSFETs in place of IGBTs: (a) a single MOSFET (600V/94A) (b) two paralleled MOSFETs (600V/94A) (c)IGBT power losses for comparison.

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000 26000 27000 28000 29000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

THD (SVM)

+

Diodes

THD (SPWM)

IGBTs

Total power loss

Po

wer

Lo

ss (

Wat

t)Carrier frequency (Hz)

TH

D %

Fig. 5. Power losses and THD of the 2-Level, FF150R12KS4 devices, 270V DC link, fundamental freq 1500Hz 15kW, regular sampling and SpaceVector modulation.

modulation scheme of fig. 1. The fact that the outer IGBTsexhibit higher switching loss make them dissipate nearly100W more than the inner IGBTs. Some re-distributionof the losses may be possible using an SVM approach, al-though that has not been investigated in detail. The clamp-ing diodes also dissipate significant power (approximately130W at baseline conditions) during reverse recovery andconduction. The multilevel converter with standard pulsewidth modulation or space vector modulation gives auseful reduction in THD of nearly 7% with respect tothe 17% obtained by the conventional inverter at baselineconditions.

As seen in fig. 5 the 2-level inverter output current

THD is 15% at 23kHz and the multilevel achieves thesame THD value with carrier of just 18kHz (fig. 6). As aconsequence the power losses are reduced by 40% to just540W.

An other comparison can be attempted on equal powerloss basis; even with a carrier of 37.5kHz the 3-levelcircuit exhibits lower power losses (702W) than the 2-level at just 20kHz (829W). The respective THD valuesare 5.3% and 17% for the 3-level and 2-level topologiesrespectively. Using fig. 6 one can estimate (by extrapo-lation) that at equal-power loss, the 3-level THD valuewould be 4 times less than that of the 2-level one.

Page 5: [IEEE 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - PESC 2008 - Rhodes, Greece (2008.06.15-2008.06.19)] 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - Comparison of losses

4311

2.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.011.0

12.013.014.015.016.017.018.019.020.021.022.0

12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 30000 32000 34000 36000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2-level baseline THD

2-level baseline

THD (SVM)

THD (SWPM)

Total power

Outer IGBT

Inner IGBT

Clamp diode

Pow

erL

oss

(Wat

t)

TH

D%

Carrier frequency (Hz)

TH

D%

Fig. 6. Power losses and THD of the 3-Level, FF200R06KE3 devices, 270V DC link, fundamental freq 1500Hz 15kW, regular sampling (powerlosses) and Space Vector modulation.

Total Power Losses

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Voltage balancedSVM

SPWM

Power loss (W )

Clamp diode losses

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Voltage balancedSVM

SPWM

Power Loss (W )

PClampSw

PClampCnd

Outer module losses

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Voltage balancedSVM

SPWM

Power Loss (W )

PQOuterSw

PQOuterCnd

PDOuterSw

PDOuterCnd

Inner Module losses

0 50 100 150 200 250

Voltage balancedSVM

SPWM

Power Loss (W )

PQnnerSw

PQInnerCnd

PDInnerSw

PDInnerCnd

(a) (b)

(d)(c)

Fig. 7. Power losses of the (a) inner IGBT modules, (b) outer IGBT modules (c) clamping diodes and (d) all semiconductors in a 3-Level converterwith sinusoidal modulation and with Space Vector modulation incorporating voltage balancing.

Page 6: [IEEE 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - PESC 2008 - Rhodes, Greece (2008.06.15-2008.06.19)] 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference - Comparison of losses

4312

IV. VOLTAGE BALANCING CONSIDERATIONS

One of the issues with the neutral point clamped 3-level circuit is that some form of capacitor balancing hasto be employed if a split DC supply with a solid center-point is unavailable. As part of this study a simple spacevector modulation approach has been tested to balance theinput voltages. The contribution of each space vector tothe capacitors’ midpoint voltage has been examined thespace vector algorithm has been adjusted to achieve a nullaverage current flow through the midpoint. Adoption ofthis simple scheme has some effects on the circuit powerlosses. Figure 7 illustrates the effect of implementing asimple space vector balancing algorithm on the powerlosses if compared with the power losses of a multilevelconverter without voltage balancing (but without unbal-anced voltages). As can be seen in fig. 7(a),(b) and (c)the switching as well as the diode reverse recovery powerlosses have been increased with the space vector balanc-ing algorithm. At the same time the conduction lossesare not significantly affected. Overall the power losseshave been increased by approximately 60W (fig. 7(d)) asa result of the change of strategy in choosing the spacevector. Even with this increase, the losses of the 3-levelcircuit are still significantly lower than those of the 2-level circuit for similar THDs, and it is envisaged that amore sophisticated scheme could achieve balancing withlittle or no additional losses.

V. CONCLUSION

Multilevel converters are used for their lower har-monic distortion of the output waveforms and the reducedvoltage rating of the semiconductors. The power lossesand THD of a 3-level inverter have been evaluated andcompared with those of a 2-level inverter in a particularapplication with high fundamental output frequency andlow THD requirements. The 3-level topology allowed theuse of lower voltage IGBTs and this in turn demonstrateda benefit of almost 40% in switching and conductionlosses for similar THD values. Similarly, the THD perfor-mance of the 3-level circuit for similar losses was far su-perior. The use of MOSFETs did not prove advantageouscompared to IGBTs in the examined frequency range.Space vector modulation offered a useful reduction in theoutput current THD for the 2-level (around 2%) with lessbenefit in the 3-level case.

REFERENCES

[1] D. Holmes and T. Lipo, Pulse Width Modulation for Power Con-verters: Principles and Practice, ser. Power Engineering (IEEE).John Wiley and Sons, 2003.

[2] B. McGrath, D. Holmes, and T. Lipo, “Optimised space vectorswitching sequences for multilevel inverters,” in Applied PowerElectronics Conference 2001, 2001.

[3] F. Wang, “Sine triangle vs. space vector modulation for three levelpwm voltage source inverters,” in IAS 2000. IEEE, 2000.

[4] K. Zhou and D. Wang, “Relationship between space-vector modu-lation and three-phase carrier-based pwm: a comprehensive analysis[three-phase inverters],” Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactionson, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 186–196, 2002.

[5] T.-J. Kim, D.-W. Kang, Y.-H. Lee, and D.-S. Hyun, “The analysis ofconduction and switching losses in multi-level inverter system,” inPower Electronics Specialists Conference, 2001. PESC. 2001 IEEE32nd Annual, vol. 3, 2001, pp. 1363–1368 vol. 3.

[6] W. Bin, High-Power Converters and AC Drives. New Jersey:J.Wiley and Sons Inc., 2006.