IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO.

2, MARCH/APRIL 2019 1729

Dual-Input Single-Resonant Tank LLC Converter

with Phase Shift Control for PV Applications
Seyed Milad Tayebi , Member, IEEE, Haibing Hu , Member, IEEE, Sam Abdel-Rahman, Member, IEEE,
and Issa Batarseh , Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—This paper proposes a dual-input LLC resonant con-

verter that interfaces with two photovoltaic (PV) panels. The topol-
ogy is a dual half-bridge LLC circuit with four active switches. This
topology allows the two sources to share the same resonant tank
for transferring energy to the load without the need for additional
circuit components. A phase-shift pulsewidth modulation (PWM)
control is employed to implement independent maximum power
point tracking (MPPT) for each PV panel. Independent MPPT is
achieved by varying the PWM phase shift of each source. Zero-
voltage-switching is realized in all switches over the entire range Fig. 1. Typical two-stage microinverter topology.
of source voltage and load conditions. In addition, voltage stress
across switches does not exceed the input PV voltage. A 500-W
prototype was built to demonstrate the performance of the pro- advantages, microinverters are widely used in the PV industry.
posed topology. The input voltage range was selected between 25
and 50 V with an output voltage regulated at 220 V dc. Experimen- However, many design improvements, such as reduced cost,
tal results show that the proposed converter can achieve the peak higher efficiency, and longer life expectancy, still remain to be
efficiency of 95.8% while maintaining a wide input voltage range made. In PV microinverter systems, cost is a top priority, since
and implementing MPPT for each PV panel. it is a disadvantage when compared to the cost per watt of cen-
Index Terms—DC gain analysis, dual-input LLC, independent tralized and string inverters. Much of this cost is driven by the
maximum power point tracking (MPPT), LLC resonant converter, higher number of circuit components in a microinverter-based
pulsewidth modulation (PWM) phase shift. PV system.
Fig. 1 shows a typical two-stage microinverter topology con-
I. INTRODUCTION
sisting of a dc/dc converter and a dc/ac inverter connected to the
MONG renewable energy sources, photovoltaic (PV) is grid. This paper concentrates on the front-end dc/dc converter
A the fastest growing energy technology over past 15 years
[1]. Three commonly used grid-tied PV system architectures
for two-stage microinverters. As mentioned earlier, cost is the
major drawback of PV microinverter systems. In order to re-
are centralized inverter, string inverter, and PV microinverter duce the cost and improve the power density of microinverter
[2]. Microinverters with typical power levels from 150 to 300 systems, it is advantageous to design a converter capable of in-
W have been shown to have advantages over centralized in- terfacing to more than one power source without increasing the
verters and string inverters in both commercial and residential number of circuit components. Various multi-port dc/dc con-
rooftop applications [3]–[5]. Some of these advantages have verter topologies have been proposed to connect more than one
improved energy harvesting, simple installation, elimination of power source [6]–[18]. These converters can be classified into
high voltage dc wiring, and higher system reliability. With these non-isolated, partially isolated, and fully isolated topologies.
Non-isolated topologies, typically derived from buck, boost,
Manuscript received May 3, 2018; revised September 8, 2018; accepted buck–boost, Cuk, Zeta, and SEPIC converters, provide compact
November 7, 2018. Date of publication November 22, 2018; date of current design and high efficiency [6]–[8]. However, in some applica-
version February 20, 2019. Paper 2018-IPCC-0453.R1, presented at the 2018 tions where isolation is required, these converters cannot be
Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, San Antonio, TX, USA,
Mar. 4–8, and approved for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUS- used. In fully isolated topologies, a multi-winding transformer
TRY APPLICATIONS by the Industrial Power Converter Committee of the IEEE is required, and each port has its own set of switches or rectifiers
Industry Applications Society. (Corresponding author: Seyed Milad Tayebi.) [9]–[11]. Therefore, a high number of switches and circuit com-
S. M. Tayebi and I. Batarseh are with the Department of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32826 USA ponents are required which increases the converter’s volume and
(e-mail:,tayebi@knights.ucf.edu; batarseh@ucf.edu). cost while reducing reliability. In partially isolated topologies
H. Hu is with the College of Automation Engineering, Nanjing University where only the PV port and the output need to be isolated, some
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210016, China (e-mail:,
huhaibing@nuaa.edu.cn). power components can be shared in the converter. A number of
S. Abdel-Rahman is with the Infineon Technologies, Orlando, FL 32826 USA research papers on multi-port partially isolated topologies have
(e-mail:,osama.abdel-rahman@infineon.com). been published in the past few years [12]–[18].
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. A dual half-bridge circuit and a transformer were used in [12]
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2018.2883015 to interface with three voltage buses. Power flow management
0093-9994 © 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1730 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2019

among the three voltage buses is realized by employing the com-

bined duty ratio and phase shift which makes the control system
very complicated. A three-port dc/dc converter was proposed in
[13] consisting of three half-bridge circuits and a transformer.
This converter interfaces with a fuel cell and a supercapacitor
by combination of a dc link and magnetic coupling, which re-
quires six switches. A triple-voltage dc/dc converter with four
active switches was presented in [14], which is the improved
version of the converter proposed in [12]. Although this topol-
ogy reduces the component count, it produces dc flux in the
power transformer and requires a complex control strategy. A
three-port converter [15], [16] and a four-port dc/dc converter
[17] were proposed to interface one or two sources, a storage
port, and an isolated load port. These topologies add a free-
wheeling circuit consisting of a switch and a diode across the
primary winding of the transformer, which decreases the con-
verter efficiency. A combination of an interleaved buck–boost
unit and a phase-shifted full-bridge circuit was presented in [18]
to connect two bidirectional source/storage ports and an isolated
load port. Power flow among the ports is controlled by both the
phase-shift angle of the bridge and duty cycle of the switches
which requires a complicated control strategy.
The output voltage of PV sources varies with manufacturer
Fig. 2. Microinverter architecture with two PV panels. (a) One microinverter
as well as insolation. Therefore, to be compatible with the va- per panel and (b) one dual-input microinverter.
riety of available PV panels, it is imperative to develop a dc/dc
converter capable of operating over a wide range of PV volt-
ages while achieving high efficiency and high power density. and voltage stress across the switches is low and does not ex-
One of the requirements for this type of converter is that it ceed the input PV voltage. This converter is a partially isolated
must step up the low input voltage from the PV panel to a volt- topology, i.e., two power ports share a common ground and are
age level suitable for the inverter stage. Among various dc/dc isolated from the output port. The advantage of this topology
converter topologies, the LLC resonant converter is a good can- is its simpler circuit structure and lower cost when compared
didate for this application due to its inherent advantages such as to two single-input converters. The proposed topology requires
soft switching, isolation, high efficiency, and high power den- only four switches and one resonant tank resulting in reduced
sity [19]–[22]. A bidirectional three-port LLC was proposed component count and lower cost.
in [23], which connects two sources each with its own reso- This paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the
nant tank. In this converter, phase shift control is employed to proposed dual-input LLC topology. The operating principle of
manage power flow among the three ports. An isolated three- the proposed converter is discussed in Section III. Section IV
port LLC converter was proposed in [24] using a multi-winding investigates the effect of frequency and phase shift as the con-
transformer. Each port has its own resonant tank which may trol variables on dc gain. The experimental results in Section V
add cost to the design. In [25], a three-port LLC topology was demonstrate the performance of the proposed converter when
presented that shares the resonant tank to interface with two implementing independent MPPT for each source and validate
sources. The voltage of one source has to be less than that of the the accuracy of the theoretical analysis on dc gain. The conclu-
other and, therefore, not suitable for sources with overlapping sion is in Section VI.
voltage ranges. A boost-integrated three-port LLC was proposed
in [26] to connect two sources with different voltage levels. In
this converter, the boost circuit shares the same switches with II. PROPOSED DUAL-INPUT LLC TOPOLOGY
the resonant tank. In [27], a three-port converter with a shared In a PV microinverter architecture where isolation is required,
LLC resonant tank was presented. An input boost circuit with a LLC resonant converter is a common topology due to its high
magnetic switch was used to realize a continuous input current efficiency. Fig. 2(a) shows one typical microinverter architec-
for solar applications. None of the above topologies can operate ture with two PV panels, each connected to an isolated mi-
with two input sources having a common ground and widely croinverter to provide MPPT for each PV source. The energy
varying and overlapping voltages. harvested from the PV panels is transferred to the grid through
In this paper, a dual-input LLC resonant converter is proposed two microinverters. This system architecture adversely impacts
to interface with two PV sources and implement maximum cost, system efficiency, and reliability. Fig. 2(b) shows the pro-
power point tracking (MPPT) for each source independently. posed isolated dc/dc converter that interfaces with two PV panels
The proposed topology uses a single resonant tank to transfer while implementing MPPT for each PV source independently.
energy to the load without the need for additional circuit compo- Note that the energy harvested from the PV panels is now trans-
nents. Zero voltage switching (ZVS) is achieved in all switches ferred through only one microinverter which greatly reduces the

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TAYEBI et al.: DUAL-INPUT SINGLE-RESONANT TANK LLC CONVERTER WITH PHASE SHIFT CONTROL FOR PV APPLICATIONS 1731

Fig. 3. Proposed dual-input LLC circuit diagram.

number of circuit components thereby improving system relia-

bility and reducing cost.
Fig. 3 shows the circuit diagram of the proposed dual-input
LLC converter. Each PV source is connected to a half-bridge
circuit so that the LLC resonant tank operates in both half-bridge
and full-bridge configuration. PV1 and PV2 are connected to S1 –
S2 and S3 –S4 , respectively, with a common ground. The LLC
resonant tank consists of Lr , Cr , and Lm . The transformer turns
ratio is 1:n and its secondary side is connected to the dc-link
capacitor (C3 ) through a bridge rectifier. Capacitors C1 , C2 , and
C3 are assumed to be large enough so that they maintain constant
voltages [28].

III. OPERATING PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSED CONVERTER

Each PV source has two switches arranged in a half-bridge
configuration. The switches operate in complementary PWM
mode with 50% duty cycle. Depending on power mismatch
between the two sources, the PWM of one source is phase
shifted either positively or negatively with respect to the other.
The switches, S1 –S4 , operate in four different states as follows:
P: S1 and S4 , ON (PV1 is connected)
B: S2 and S3 , ON (PV2 is connected)
PB: S1 and S3 , ON (PV1 and PV2 are both connected)
N: S2 and S4 , ON (no PV source is connected).
Note that each switch state may source power to the output
or enter free-wheeling operation resulting in two power transfer
modes as follows:
O: Source power to the output
F: Free-wheeling operation.
There are eight distinct operating modes, which are deter-
mined by the four switch states and two power transfer modes.
For example, BO occurs when S2 and S3 are ON with PV2 con-
nected and the resonant tank is sourcing power to the output.
Similarly, PBF occurs when S1 and S3 are ON with PV1 and PV2
connected and the resonant tank is in free-wheeling operation.
Fig. 4. Example of operating waveforms of the dual-input LLC for (a) positive
In a traditional LLC topology, since there is only one voltage phase shift, and (b) negative phase shift.
source, the resonant tank voltage is symmetric with identical
amplitude on positive and negative half cycles. In the proposed
topology, there are two sources which may be operating at two One example of typical operating waveforms of the proposed
different dc voltages. Any voltage difference between the two dual-input LLC converter is shown in Fig. 4 for both positive and
sources appears as a dc voltage across the resonant capaci- negative PWM phase shift. In this example, there are six switch-
tor causing a voltage imbalance between positive and negative ing modes in one switching cycle (TS ). Although the first and
half cycles. Due to the asymmetry of the proposed topology, second half cycles are symmetric, two different voltage sources
numerical time-domain analysis must be performed instead of energize the resonant tank. With this in mind, time-domain anal-
fundamental harmonic approximation (FHA) typically used for ysis of each mode will be performed over the entire switching
an LLC resonant converter. cycle in order to account for both sources. Fig. 4(a) shows the

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1732 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2019

Fig. 5. Operating modes of the proposed dual-input LLC converter, (a) PO, (b) NO, (c) NF, (d) BO, (e) PBO, and (f) PBF.

resonant and magnetizing currents, capacitor voltage, resonant where ωr = 2πfr , Zr = Lr /Cr , and iL r (to ) and vCr (to ) are
tank voltage, and switch waveforms with positive PWM phase the initial inductor current and capacitor voltage, respectively.
shift (ϕ > 0). Modes of operation are depicted in Fig. 5. Mode 2[t1 , t2 ]: In this interval, S2 and S4 are ON, and the
Mode 1[t0 , t1 ]: In this interval, S1 and S4 are ON, and PV1 resonant tank voltage is zero. The resonant current is greater
is energizing the resonant tank. Since the resonant current is than magnetizing current, i.e., energy is still being transferred
greater than magnetizing current, this energy is transferred to to the output. Therefore, this mode is NO as shown in Fig. 5(b).
the transformer secondary side to supply the load. Therefore, this Since the voltage of the transformer magnetizing inductor is
is PO mode as shown in Fig. 5(a). In PO mode, the resonant tank clamped to Vo /n, its current is increasing with the same slope as
voltage (VA B ) is equal to VPV1 and the magnetizing inductor that of mode 1. Note that the resonant current decreases rapidly
voltage is clamped to Vo /n. Therefore, the magnetizing current due to the fact that the energy transferred to the secondary side
(iL m ) starts charging linearly and the difference between the is only provided by the resonant tank. Therefore, this mode
resonant current (iL r ) and magnetizing current is transferred to ends when all of the energy is transferred to the output at t2 .
the transformer secondary side. Note that the inductor resonant Similarly, the inductor resonant current, magnetizing current,
√ (vCr ) are sinusoidal at a
current and capacitor resonant voltage and capacitor resonant voltage can be calculated as follows
resonant frequency of fr = 1/2π Lr Cr . where t1 = T2 − ωϕr :
In this mode, the inductor resonant current, magnetizing cur- ⎧
rent, and capacitor resonant voltage can be expressed as follows: ⎪
⎪ iL r (t) = iL r (t1 ) cos (ωr (t − t1 ))
⎪
⎪  Vo 
⎪
⎪ n +v C r (t 1 )
⎪
⎪ − sin (ωr (t − t1 ))
⎧ ⎨ Zr
⎪
⎪ iL r (t) = iL r (t0 ) cos (ωr (t − t0 )) iL m (t) = nVLom (t − t1 ) + iL m (t1 ) . (2)
⎪
⎪   ⎪
⎪
⎪ V P V 1 − Vno −v C r (t 0 ) ⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎨+ sin (ωr (t − t0 )) ⎪
⎪ vC r (t) = − no + iL r (t1 ) Zr sin (ωr (t − t1 ))
V
Zr ⎪
⎪
iL m (t) = nVLom (t − t0 ) + iL r (t0 ) (1) ⎪
⎩  Vo
⎪
⎪  + n + vC r (t1 ) cos (ωr (t − t1 ))
⎪
⎪
⎪ vC r (t) = VPV 1 − n + iL r (t0 ) Zr sin (ωr (t − t0 ))
V o
⎪
⎩ − V
⎪ Mode 3[t2 , T/2]: In this mode, no energy is transferred to
PV 1 − n − vC r (t0 ) cos (ωr (t − t0 ))
Vo
the secondary side since the resonant current and magnetizing

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TAYEBI et al.: DUAL-INPUT SINGLE-RESONANT TANK LLC CONVERTER WITH PHASE SHIFT CONTROL FOR PV APPLICATIONS 1733

current are equal (free-wheeling operation). Therefore, the mag- resonant voltage are calculated as
netizing inductor is not clamped to the output voltage anymore ⎧
⎪
⎪ iL r (t) = iL r (t4 ) cos (ωm (t − t4 ))
and starts resonating with Lr and Cr . This is NF mode as shown ⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪ V P V 1 −V P V 2 −v C r (t 4 )
in Fig. 5(c). iL r , iL m , and vC r can be expressed as ⎪
⎪ + sin (ωm (t − t4 ))
⎧ ⎨ Z m

⎪ iL r (t) = iL r (t2 ) cos (ωm (t − t2 )) iL m (t) = iL r (t) .

⎪
⎪   ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ v C r (t 2 ) ⎪
⎪ v (t) = (VPV 1 − VPV 2 ) + iL r (t4 ) Zm sin (ωm (t − t4 ))
⎨− Zm sin (ωm (t − t2 )) ⎪
⎪ Cr
⎪
⎩ − (V
iL m (t) = iL r (t) (3) PV 1 − VPV 2 − vC r (t4 )) cos (ωm (t − t4 ))
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ vC r (t) = iL r (t2 ) Zm sin (ωm (t − t2 )) (6)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
+ (vC r (t2 )) cos (ωm (t − t2 )) The operation of the circuit for negative PWM phase shift


(ϕ < 0) is similar to the preceding analysis and, therefore, is
where ωm = 1/ (Lr + Lm )Cr and Zm = (Lr + Lm )/Cr . not discussed in this paper.
Mode 4[T/2, t3 ]: In this interval, S2 and S3 are ON, and PV2
is energizing the resonant tank, i.e., the resonant tank voltage IV. ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF FREQUENCY AND
is VPV2 . Similar to mode 1, since the magnitude of the reso- PHASE SHIFT ON DC GAIN
nant current is greater than the magnetizing current, energy is
transferred to the secondary side. Therefore, this mode is BO as The design approach of the proposed topology is similar to
shown in Fig. 5(d). Note that the magnetizing inductor voltage that of a typical LLC resonant converter except that the reso-
is clamped to -Vo /n and its current starts discharging linearly. nant capacitor must be selected to withstand the additional peak
iL r , iL m , and vC r can be calculated as voltage caused by the maximum voltage difference between the
⎧    two input sources. The design approach was performed to en-
⎪ iL r (t) = iL r T2 cos ωr t − T2
⎪
⎪ sure that ZVS can be achieved over the entire range of source
⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪ −V P V 2 + Vno −v C r ( T2 )   voltage and load conditions [29]. Although higher efficiency is
⎪
⎪ + sin ωr t − T2
⎪
⎨ Zr achieved at higher values of magnetizing inductance, maximum
−V o
 T and minimum gain requirement needs to be considered in the
.
⎪ iL m (t) = n L m t − 2 + iL r 2
T
⎪
⎪ design of the LLC resonant tank. In this paper, the maximum
⎪ v (t) = −V
⎪
⎪
   voltage gain occurs when both PV sources are operating at min-
PV 2 + n + iL r T2 Zr sin ωr t − T2
Vo
⎪
⎪ Cr
⎪
⎪ imum voltage of 25 V which is Km ax = 1.6 (PV nominal voltage
⎩    
− −VPV 2 + Vno − vC r T2 cos ωr t − T2 is 40 V). Similarly, minimum voltage gain occurs when both PV
(4) sources operate at maximum voltage of 50 V which is Km in =
0.8. Using these parameters, the resonant component values are
Mode 5[t3 , t4 ]: In this mode, S1 and S3 are ON, and both calculated as follows: resonant inductor Lr = 3.2 μH, resonant
PV sources are connected to the resonant tank. Therefore, the capacitor Cr = 0.8 μF, and magnetizing inductor Lm = 12 μH.
resonant tank voltage is the voltage difference between the two The resonant tank is designed for input voltage range of 25–50 V
PV sources. Similar to mode 2, energy is still being transferred (each source) with the transformer turns ratio of 5.6. Since the
to the secondary side. This interval is PBO mode where the LLC resonant tank is connected to two different voltage sources,
two PV panels are connected to the tank and the transformer its tank voltage may not be symmetric as shown in Fig. 4. There-
supplies the load, as shown in Fig. 5(e). This mode ends where fore, the FHA cannot predict the gain characteristic of the pro-
the resonant current crosses the magnetizing current at t5 . iL r , posed converter accurately [30]. In an effort to calculate the gain
iL m , and vC r can be determined as follows: characteristic precisely, numerical time-domain analysis will be
⎧
⎪
⎪ iL r (t) = iL r (t3 ) cos (ωr (t − t3 )) performed in this section. Referring to Fig. 4, the following
⎪
⎪  
⎪
⎪ initial conditions must be met in the first half cycle:
⎪ + V P V 1 −V P V 2 + n −v C r (t 3 ) sin (ωr (t − t3 ))
Vo
⎪
⎪ ⎧ 
⎪
⎪
Zr
⎪ i (t ) = −iL r T2
⎨ iL m (t) = n−V ⎪
⎨ Lr 0
L m (t − t3 ) + iL r (t3 ) 
o

⎪  (5) vC r (t0 ) = −vC r T2 + (VPV 1 − VPV 2 ) . (7)

⎪
⎪ vC r (t) = VPV 1 − VPV 2 + Vno ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎩ i (t ) = i (t )
⎪
⎪ Lm 2 Lr 2
⎪
⎪ +iL r (t3 ) Zr sin (ωr (t − t3 ))
⎪
⎪
⎩  Similarly, in the second half cycle, the following initial con-
− VPV 1 − VPV 2 + Vno − vC r (t3 ) cos (ωr (t − t3 ))
ditions must be maintained:
where t3 = T − ωϕr . ⎧ T
⎪
⎪ i = −iL r (T )
Mode 6[t4 , T]: Similar to mode 3, no energy is transferred to ⎨ Lr 2
the output and the magnetizing inductor starts resonating with iL m (t4 ) = iL r (t4 ) . (8)
⎪
Lr and Cr . Therefore, this is PBF mode where both PV panels ⎩ v  T = −v (T ) + (V
⎪
−V )
Cr 2 Cr PV 1 PV 2
are connected to the resonant tank but the transformer does not
source the secondary side as shown in Fig. 5(f). Similarly, the In addition, the output current is the average value of the
inductor resonant current, magnetizing current, and capacitor difference between the resonant current and magnetizing current

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1734 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2019

Fig. 8. Control structure of the proposed converter with MPPT.

Fig. 6. Open-loop output voltage versus operating frequency at 100 and
500 W with 0-degree and 30-degree phase shift.

shift is also minimal. Therefore, the output voltage is mainly a

function of operating frequency as one would see in a typical
LLC resonant converter. Since the output voltage is not affected
by phase shift, implementation of independent MPPT for each
source is simple and straightforward. Fig. 7 shows power from
each source versus PWM phase shift for three different power
levels and operating frequencies with each PV source set to
40 V. Note that at zero-degree phase shift, the power from each
source is equal, and increases or decreases depending on the
phase shift.

V. CONTROL STRATEGY
Fig. 8 shows control structure of the proposed converter with
MPPT for each PV source. Referring to the figure, the MPPT
Fig. 7. Power contribution of two sources as a function of phase shift. functional block measures the voltage and current of each source
to calculate the available input PV power. The switching fre-
quency and PWM phase shift are determined by the MPPT con-
as follows: troller. The switching frequency is selected based on the total
T available input power from the two sources, and the PWM phase
1 Vo
Io = (iL r (t) − iL m (t))dt = . (9) shift of each source is a function of power mismatch between
n (T − t0 ) t0 Ro the two PV panels. The PWM modulator then generates two
Equations (1)–(6) from the previous section along with (7)– pairs of PWM signals for the two half-bridge circuits. Note that
(9) are used to numerically calculate the output voltage and the PWM on each half-bridge circuit is modulated in comple-
power versus switching frequency and the PWM phase shift mentary mode with 50% duty cycle. Depending on the power
with different PV voltages as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Referring mismatch between the two sources, these two pairs of PWM
to the figures, the output voltage and total power are controlled signals may be phase shifted either positively or negatively with
by the switching frequency and not affected by the PWM phase respect to each other [28].
shift. It should be noted that power from each PV panel is Since the MPPT function is operating at much lower fre-
determined by the PWM phase shift control, which allows for quency than the switching frequency, small signal analysis was
MPPT to be implemented for each source independently. not performed in this paper. However, an iterative method was
Fig. 6 shows the converter output voltage versus frequency used here to implement MPPT using the switching frequency
with two sets of operating parameters without bus voltage regu- and phase shift. This method is based on a perturb and observe
lation (BVR). Normally, the bus voltage will be controlled by the algorithm that constantly measures input power from PV1 and
inverter stage at nominal value. In case 1, both PV sources are PV2. As shown in Fig. 9, when power from both PV sources
40 V and in case 2, VPV1 is 45 V and VPV2 is 30 V. In both cases, is either increasing or decreasing, the MPPT controller only
the converter is operating at 500 and 100 W with zero-degree adjusts the switching frequency to locate the maximum power
and 30-degree phase shift. It can be seen that in case 1 where point which is similar to a typical MPPT controller used in a
there is no voltage difference between the sources, phase shift PV microinverter. However, when there is power mismatch be-
has insignificant impact on output voltage. In case 2 even with tween the two sources, phase shift will be introduced along with
a large voltage difference between sources, the effect of phase the switching frequency to implement MPPT. During dynamic

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TAYEBI et al.: DUAL-INPUT SINGLE-RESONANT TANK LLC CONVERTER WITH PHASE SHIFT CONTROL FOR PV APPLICATIONS 1735

TABLE I
CONVERTER PROTOTYPE OPERATING PARAMETERS

Fig. 9. MPPT controller. magnetizing inductor Lm = 12 μH, and the transformer turns
ratio n = 5.6. The switches operate in complementary PWM
mode with 50% duty cycle and the dead time of 100 ns.
Three typical cases summarized in Table I are analyzed to ver-
ify the performance of the proposed converter when MPPT is
implemented for each source. The two control variables, switch-
ing frequency and phase shift, were calculated based on the nu-
merical time-domain analysis in Section IV, and compared with
the experimental results obtained at the same operating param-
eters to validate the accuracy of the analysis. Fig. 11 shows the
resonant tank voltage (VA B ), inductor resonant current (iL r ),
and switching waveforms (S1 and S3 ) for the three cases. In
case 1, determined by the MPPT control, PV1 is operating
at 45 V with 200 W of available power. PV2 is operating at
30 V with 100 W of available power. In this case, in order to
implement independent MPPT for each source, the switching
frequency and PWM phase shift are selected to be 87 kHz and
−15°, respectively. The converter output voltage is regulated at
220 V by the inverter stage BVR. Fig. 11(a) shows the experi-
mental switching waveforms of case 1 with negative phase shift.
Referring to the figure, due to the voltage difference between
Fig. 10. Proposed dual-input LLC converter prototype.
the two sources and the PWM phase shift of each source, the
resonant tank voltage is not symmetrical over one switching
cycle as seen in Fig. 4(b) in Section III. Despite the asymmetric
change in power, the MPPT controller iteratively adjusts the
tank voltage, the inductor resonant current is symmetric and the
switching frequency and phase shift in several steps to locate
converter operates at an efficiency of 94.5%.
the maximum power point. The MPPT algorithm is designed
In the second case, PV1 operates at 35 V with 115 W of
so that only one variable, either frequency or phase shift, is
available power, and PV2 operates at 40 V with 185 W of avail-
modified during each sampling period. This approach was im-
able power. The operating frequency and PWM phase shift are
plemented in the prototype to achieve independent MPPT for
set at 87 kHz and +29°, respectively, with measured efficiency
each PV source.
of 95%. Note that the converter output voltage is maintained at
220 V by the BVR. The experimental switching waveforms with
VI. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS positive phase shift are shown in Fig. 11(b), which correspond to
As shown in Fig. 10, a 500-W dual-input LLC resonant the predicted waveforms in Fig. 4(a). Any dc voltage mismatch
converter prototype was built to validate the operating prin- between the two sources is blocked by the resonant capacitor and
ciple and performance of the converter. The prototype spec- does not adversely affect the operation of the converter. In both
ifications are as follows: input voltage Vin = 25– 50 V (each case 1 and case 2, the combined power from the two sources is
PV source), output voltage Vo = 220 V, rated output power 300 W. Therefore, the converter’s operating frequency remains
Po = 500 W (250 W, each PV source), switching frequency constant as expected and discussed in Section IV. However, the
range fs = 50–180 kHz, resonant frequency fr = 100 kHz, res- PWM phase shift varies with each source’s contribution to the
onant inductor Lr = 3.2 μH, resonant capacitor Cr = 0.8 μF, total power as shown in Fig. 7.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1736 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2019

Fig. 12. Operating waveforms for two identical PV sources. (a) I–V charac-
teristic of PV1, (b) I–V characteristic of PV2, and (c) power contribution of each
source with zero phase shift.

results, the selected values of frequency and phase shift are in

close agreement with the calculated values. Therefore, the ex-
perimental results validate the numerical time-domain analysis
performed in Section IV to verify the effectiveness of switching
frequency and phase shift control on power contribution of each
source. Referring to Fig. 11, ZVS is achieved for S1 in all three
cases since the resonant current is negative prior to turning ON
S1 . This negative direction of current forces the body diode of
S1 to conduct during the dead time and provide zero voltage
across S1 . The same is true for S3 .
To demonstrate the control loop dynamic response, two solar
array simulators with an interface software were used to pro-
duce a dynamic change in PV power. Figs. 12 and 13 show the
dynamic response of the MPPT controller when power from
PV2 decreases from 140 to 100 W while PV1 is operating at
the same condition (140 W). Fig. 12 shows operating wave-
forms for two identical PV sources producing 140 W before
the dynamic change. Note that there is no phase shift since the
power is balanced between the two PV sources. Therefore, the
Fig. 11. Key operating waveforms of the proposed dual-input LLC topology MPPT controller only perturbs frequency to locate the maxi-
for (a) case 1, (b) case 2, and (c) case 3.
mum power point. The converter is operating at 93 kHz with
zero phase shift. After the dynamic change in PV2’s power when
In case 3, PV2 is disconnected and PV1 is supplying the load. its power decreases from 140 to 100 W, the MPPT controller
Therefore, in this case, S3 is OFF and S4 is ON, and the reso- starts adjusting the switching frequency and phase shift to locate
nant tank is operating in half-bridge configuration as shown in the maximum power point. Fig. 13 shows operating waveforms
Fig. 11(c). The available input power and voltage are 200 W for two PV sources one of which is operating at 140 W and
and 40 V, respectively. The output voltage is 220 V as in case 1 the other operating at 100 W. It can be seen that the operating
and case 2, and the converter operates at 56 kHz. Efficiency parameters of PV2 have changed due to the fact that the MPPT
was measured at 95.5%. Note that in all of the experimental controller has changed the switching frequency and phase shift

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TAYEBI et al.: DUAL-INPUT SINGLE-RESONANT TANK LLC CONVERTER WITH PHASE SHIFT CONTROL FOR PV APPLICATIONS 1737

Fig. 15. Both PVs’ voltages and currents during the dynamic change in power.

Fig. 13. Operating waveforms of the two PV sources. (a) I–V characteristic of
PV1, (b) I–V characteristic of PV2, and (c) power contribution of each source
with −34° phase shift.

Fig. 16. Current waveforms from each source with zero phase shift.

during the dynamic change. It can be seen that power changes

on one PV source will not adversely impact on the operation of
the other PV panel.
When the power is shared equally between the two sources,
phase shift is zero and switch currents are symmetrical as
one would expect to see in a typical LLC resonant converter
with a single source voltage. An example of this is shown in
Fig. 14. Controller’s performance during the dynamic change in power. Fig. 16 with the converter operating at 400 W with each source
supplying 200 W. Fig. 17 shows the converter efficiency versus
input power from the two PV sources at different input voltages
after the dynamic change in order to locate the maximum power with no voltage mismatch between the two sources. The PWM
point. The MPPT controller adjusted the switching frequency phase shift of each source is set at 0°, thereby each source gen-
and phase shift at 80 kHz and −34°, respectively. Note that the erates half of the input power. At nominal PV input voltage of
MPPT controller is now introducing phase shift to compensate 40 V, the peak efficiency of 95.8% is achieved while the switch-
for this power mismatch, and perturbs frequency and phase shift ing frequency is equal to the resonant frequency of 100 kHz.
at a time to locate the maximum power point. It can be seen that At 50 V, switching losses are dominant since the switching fre-
MPPT is achieved for both PV sources. quency reaches as high as 180 kHz. Efficiency is lowest at input
Fig. 14 shows PV2’s voltage and current before and after the voltage of 25 V as a result of increased conduction loss while
dynamic change in power from 140 to 100 W. The switching the converter is operating at 60 kHz.
waveforms are also depicted during this dynamic change along The LLC control bandwidth is far greater than that of the
with the extended views. It can be seen that it takes several steps MPPT control bandwidth. Therefore, there is little interaction
for the MPPT controller to adjust the switching frequency and between the two controllers, and MPPT will dominate. Even
phase shift in locating the maximum power point during the though this topology supports two PV panels, it can operate
dynamic change. Fig. 15 shows both PVs’ voltages and currents with one PV source in the event that one panel fails. The benefit

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1738 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 55, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2019

[2] S. Harb, M. Kedia, H. Zhang, and R. S. Balog, “Microinverter and string

inverter grid-connected photovoltaic system – A comprehensive study,”
in Proc. IEEE 39th Photovolt. Specialists Conf., 2013, pp. 2885–2890.
[3] S. B. Kjaer, J. K. Pedersen, and F. Blaabjerg, “A review of single-
phase grid-connected inverters for photovoltaic modules,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1292–1306, Sep./Oct. 2005.
[4] W. Yu, J.-S. J. Lai, H. Qian, and C. Hutchens, “High-efficiency MOS-
FET inverter with H6-type configuration for photovoltaic nonisolated
AC-module application,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 4,
pp. 1253–1260, Apr. 2011.
[5] X. Yaosuo, C. Liuchen, S. B. Kjaer, J. Bordonau, and T. Shimizu, “Topolo-
gies of single-phase inverters for small distributed power generators: An
overview,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1305–1314,
Sep. 2004.
[6] A. Kwasinski, “Identification of feasible topologies for multiple input dc–
dc converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 856–861,
Mar. 2009.
[7] Y. Li, X. Ruan, D. Yang, F. Liu, and C. K. Tse, “Synthesis of multiple
input dc/dc converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25, no. 9,
Fig. 17. Measured efficiency of the proposed dual-input LLC prototype. pp. 2372–2385, Sep. 2010.
[8] H.Wu, K. Sun, S. Ding, and Y. Xing, “Topology derivation of non-isolated
three-port dc–dc converters from DIC and DOC,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 3297–3307, Jul. 2013.
of this topology is that it eliminates one dc/dc converter that [9] S. Falcones, R. Ayyanar, and X. Mao, “A dc–dc multiport-converter-based
solid-state transformer integrating distributed generation and storage,”
would be required for the second panel, thereby reducing cost, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2192–2203, May 2013.
size, and weight while improving reliability. [10] L. Wang, Z. Wang, and H. Li, “Asymmetrical duty cycle control and
The main advantage of this converter compared to the two decoupled power flow design of a three-port bidirectional dc-dc converter
for fuel cell vehicle application,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27,
independent half-bridge LLC converters is the reduced num- no. 2, pp. 891–904, Feb. 2012.
ber of components which results in reduced cost and improved [11] S. Y. Kim, H.-S. Song, and K. Nam, “Idling port isolation control of
reliability. Two independent half-bridge LLC converters can three-port bidirectional converter for EVs,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 2495–2506, May 2012.
simply implement MPPT for two PV panels at the cost of in- [12] G. J. Su and F. Z. Peng, “A low cost, triple-voltage bus dc/dc converter for
creased number of components since two LLC resonant tanks automotive applications,” in Proc. 20th Annu. IEEE Appl. Power Electron.
are required. In addition, either two two-winding transformers Conf. Expo., Mar. 2005, vol. 2, pp. 1015–1021.
[13] H. Tao, J. L. Duarte, and M. A. M. Hendrix, “Novel zero-voltage switching
or one three-winding transformer is required when two inde- control methods for a multiple-input converter interfacing a fuel cell and
pendent half-bridge LLC converters are used. The converter super-capacitor,” in Proc. 32nd Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron., Nov.
presented in this paper combined with the dual MPPT controller 2006, pp. 2341–2346.
[14] G.-J. Su and L. Tang, “A reduced-part, triple-voltage DC–DC converter
allows us to connect two PV panels and implement independent for EV/HEV power management,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24,
MPPT function for each PV source with minimum number of no. 10, pp. 2406–2410, Oct. 2009.
components. [15] H. Al-Atrash, F. Tian, and I. Batarseh, “Tri-modal half-bridge converter
topology for three-port interface,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22,
no. 1, pp. 341–345, Jan. 2007.
[16] Z. Qian, O. Abdel-Rahman, H. Al-Atrash, and I. Batarseh, “Modeling and
VII. CONCLUSION control of three-port dc/dc converter interface for satellite applications,”
An efficient dual-input single-resonant tank LLC converter IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 637–649, Mar. 2010.
[17] Z. Qian, O. Abdel-Rahman, and I. Batarseh, “An integrated four-port
was proposed in this paper to interface with two PV sources. This dc/dc converter for renewable energy applications,” IEEE Trans. Power
cost-effective topology allows the two sources to share the same Electron., vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1877–1887, Jul. 2010.
resonant tank for transferring energy to the load without the need [18] H. Al-Atrash, M. Pepper, and I. Batarseh, “A zero-voltage switching three-
port isolated full-bridge converter,” in Proc. 28th Int. Telecommun. Energy
for additional circuit components. ZVS is achieved in all four Conf., Sep. 2006, pp. 1–8.
switches and voltage stress across the switches i low and does [19] H. Hu, X. Fang, F. Chen, Z. J. Shen, and I. Batarseh, “A modified high-
not exceed the input PV voltage. The PWM phase shift control efficiency LLC converter with two transformers for wide input-voltage
range applications,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1946–
was employed to source different amount of power from each 1960, Apr. 2013.
PV panel when implementing MPPT. Numerical time-domain [20] C.W. Tsang, M. P. Foster, D. A. Stone, and D. T. Gladwin, “Analysis and
analysis was performed to verify the effectiveness of phase shift design of LLC resonant converters with capacitor–diode clamp current
limiting,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1345–1355,
control on dc gain and power contribution of each source. The Mar. 2015.
advantage of this topology is its simpler circuit structure and [21] H. Wang, S. Dusmez, and A. Khaligh, “Maximum efficiency point tracking
lower cost compared to two single-input converters. A 500-W technique for LLC-based PEV chargers through variable DC link control,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 6041–6049, Nov. 2014.
prototype was built to demonstrate the performance of the [22] X. Sun, X. Li, Y. Shen, B. Wang, and X. Guo, “Dual-bridge LLC resonant
proposed converter when implementing independent MPPT for converter with fixed-frequency PWM control for wide input applications,”
each source and validate the accuracy of the analysis. IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 69–80, Jan. 2017.
[23] H. Krishnaswami and N. Mohan, “Three-port series-resonant DC–DC
converter to interface renewable energy sources with bidirectional load
and energy storage ports,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 3,
REFERENCES pp. 1345–1355, Mar. 2015.
[24] Y.-K. Tran and D. Dujic, “A multiport isolated DC-DC converter,” in Proc.
[1] European Photovoltaic Industry Association. Global market outlook for
IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2016, pp. 156–162.
photovoltaics until 2014, 2012. [Online]. Available: www.epia.org

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TAYEBI et al.: DUAL-INPUT SINGLE-RESONANT TANK LLC CONVERTER WITH PHASE SHIFT CONTROL FOR PV APPLICATIONS 1739

[25] T. Jiang, Q. Lin, J. Zhang, and Y. Wang, “A novel ZVS and ZCS three- Haibing Hu (M’09) received the B.S. degree from the
port LLC resonant converter for renewable energy systems,” in Proc. IEEE Hunan University of Technology, Zhuzhou, China,
Energy Convers. Congr. Expos., 2014, pp. 2296–2302. in 1995, the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Zhejiang
[26] X. Sun, Y. Shen, W. Li, and H. Wu, “A PWM and PFM hybrid mod- University, Hangzhou, China, in 2003 and 2007, re-
ulated three-port converter for a standalone PV/battery power system,” spectively, all in electrical engineering.
IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 984–1000, Since 2007, he has been with the Faculty of Electri-
Dec. 2015. cal Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics
[27] H. Zhu, D. Zhang, H. S. Athab, B. Wu, and Y. Gu, “PV isolated three- and Astronautics (NUAA), Nanjing, China, and is
port converter and energy-balancing control method for PV-battery power currently a Professor with the College of Automation
supply applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3595– Engineering, NUAA. His research interests include
3606, Jun. 2015. digital control in power electronics, multilevel in-
[28] S. M. Tayebi, H. Hu, O. Abdel-Rahman, and I. Batarseh, “Design and verter, digital control system integration for power electronics, and applying
analysis of a dual-input single-resonant tank LLC converter for PV ap- power electronics to distributed energy systems and power quality.
plications,” in Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2018,
pp. 476–483.
[29] https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Application_Note_Resonant+LLC+
Sam Abdel-Rahman received the B.S. degree in
Converter+Operation+and+Design_Infineon.pdf?fileId=db3a30433a
047ba0013a4a60e3be64a1 electronics engineering from Princess Sumaya Uni-
versity for Technology, Jordan, in 2003, and the M.S.
[30] X. Fang, H. Hu, Z. J. Shen, and I. Batarseh, “Operation mode analysis
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the
and peak gain approximation of the LLC resonant converter,” IEEE Trans.
University of Central Florida in 2007 and 2005, re-
Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1985–1995, Apr. 2012.
spectively.
He is currently a System Application Engineer
with Infineon Technologies supporting and defining
discrete power devices and ICs for SMPS and Solar
applications.

Issa Batarseh (F’06) received the B.S.E.E. degree

in electrical and computer engineering and M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Uni-
versity of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA, in 1983, 1985,
and 1990, respectively.
He is currently a Professor with the Department
of Electrical Engineering at the University of Central
Florida, Orlando, FL, USA. From 1989 to 1990, he
was a Visiting Assistant Professor with Purdue Uni-
versity, Calumet, IN, USA, before joining the Uni-
Seyed Milad Tayebi (M’17) received the B.S. de-
versity of Central Florida in 1991. He authored or
gree from the Noshirvani University of Technology,
coauthored more than 80 refereed journals and 300 conference papers in ad-
Babol, Iran, in 2009, the M.S. degree from the Iran
dition to 31 U.S. patents. He is also an author of a textbook entitled Power
University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran Electronics with Springer. His research interests focus on power electronics and
in 2012, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of
high-frequency, smart grid-tied PV energy conversion systems. His team at the
Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA, in 2017, all in
Florida Power Electronics Center (www.FPEC.ucf.edu) has been leading the
electrical engineering.
design, development, and commercialization of smart microinverters and smart
He is currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow
EV and industrial chargers.
with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Uni-
Dr. Batarseh is a Registered Professional Engineer in the state of Florida
versity of Central Florida. He is currently with the
and a Fellow of AAAS. He is a member of the National Academy of Inventors
Florida Power Electronic Center, University of Cen- (NAI) and has been inducted into the Florida Inventors Hall of Fame. He has
tral Florida. His current research interests include digital control in power elec-
served as a Chairman for IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference 2007
tronics, efficiency optimization of dc/ac inverters, soft switching techniques,
and was the Chair of the IEEE Power Engineering Chapter, the IEEE Orlando
and dc/dc resonant converters.
Section.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROURKELA. Downloaded on January 01,2021 at 11:24:25 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.