Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
In grid-connected power converter applications, the phase-locked loop (PLL) is probably the most widely used grid synchronization technique, owing to its simple implementation. However, in power grids some very common problems, such as voltage distortion, voltage unbalance, and frequency instability make synchronization a challenging task. The performance of the conventional synchronous reference frame PLL (SRF-PLL) is greatly reduced in the presence of distorted grid conditions. For a polluted grid some advance PLL techniques have been proposed, such as moving average filter PLL (MAF-PLL) and cascaded delayed signal cancellation PLL (CDSC-PLL). These techniques have been mostly evaluated in the presence of odd and even harmonics but the effects of interharmonics on these synchronization techniques still needs to be investigated. In this paper, a detailed performance comparison has been made between SRF-PLL, MAF-PLL, and CDSC-PLL for grid voltages contaminated with interharmonics in the presence of different grid disturbances, such as frequency jump, phase angle jump, and dc offset. The techniques are simulated using Matlab/Simulink. The CDSC-PLL shows excellent performance as compared with other techniques in terms of dynamic response as it settles to frequency step change in a half cycle but the presence of interharmonics greatly reduces its filtering capability. On the other hand, MAF-PLL gives a ripple free behavior in frequency estimation but with a much slower dynamic response as it settles to a frequency step change in more than three cycles. SRF-PLL only performs well under harmonics free grid voltages. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2019 | 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2930530 | IEEE ACCESS |
Keywords | DocType | Volume |
Grid synchronization, phase locked loop, interharmonics and power quality improvement | Journal | 7 |
ISSN | Citations | PageRank |
2169-3536 | 0 | 0.34 |
References | Authors | |
0 | 2 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ikram Ullah | 1 | 0 | 0.34 |
| Muhammad Ashraf | 2 | 7 | 4.62 |