Open AccessDSP‐based comparison of PFC control techniques applied on bridgeless converter
Author(s) -
Ortatepe Zafer,
Karaarslan Ahmet
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
iet power electronics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.637
H-Index - 77
eISSN - 1755-4543
pISSN - 1755-4535
DOI - 10.1049/iet-pel.2018.5411
Subject(s) - control theory (sociology) , power factor , rectifier (neural networks) , harmonics , total harmonic distortion , pid controller , voltage , controller (irrigation) , harmonic , computer science , engineering , electronic engineering , physics , control engineering , electrical engineering , control (management) , stochastic neural network , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence , machine learning , recurrent neural network , artificial neural network , biology , temperature control , agronomy
A comparison of fuzzy self‐tuning (FST), sliding mode control (SMC) and conventional proportional–integral (PI) control methods is performed under unbalanced grid conditions using a bridgeless power factor correction (PFC) converter. The bridgeless PFC converter operates the correction of AC line current to obtain a DC output voltage without full bridge rectifier based on these control methods. These control methods generate the duty cycles to provide higher unity power factor and lower total harmonic distortion of input current, even if AC line voltage is distorted. This study focuses on the performance analysis of FST and SMC methods adaptation to the input current for the bridgeless PFC converter and comparing with the conventional PI controller. Although the SMC method is only used in the current control loop, the FST method is used in both current and voltage control loops for eliminating harmonics of input current and regulating of output voltage. The performance of control methods is evaluated with a TMS320F2812 digital signal processor. The simulation and experimental results are compatible with the limits for harmonic current emissions, IEC 61000‐3‐2 and show that the FST and SMC are better than the conventional PI control method and FST is superior to the SMC.