A Novel Double-Loop Control Structure Based on

Fuzzy-PI and Fuzzy-PR Strategies for Single-Phase

Inverter in Photovoltaic Application
Parham Mohammadi
Department of Electrical Engeenering
Amirkabir University of Technology
Tehran,Iran
Parhammh.e@gmail.com
Behrouz Azimian
Inamori School of Engineering
Alfred University
Alfred, USA
mr.behrouz.azimian@IEEE.org
Amir Shahirinia
Center of Excellence for Renewable Energy
University of the District of Columbia
Washington, D.C., USA
amir.shahirinia@udc.edu

Abstract— Photovoltaic systems are on the way to becoming
the main energy generating unit, in the future gird. Low voltage
ride through (LVRT) capability is one of the most important
features in the future grid-tied photovoltaic systems. In this paper,
a novel control strategy based on the fuzzy-PI controller (FPIC)
and fuzzy-PR controller (FPRC) is proposed. The FPRC is used
for the inner current control loop, and the FPIC is used for outer
power control loop. Unlike former FPRCs, the proposed inner
loop controller not only compensates the main frequency but also
uses self-tuned parameters for compensating selected low order
harmonics, for enhancement of injected current to the grid. In the
proposed structure, both inner and outer loop parameters are self-
tuned on-line, hence the fast dynamic and low overshoot are
achieved. The proposed structure has the following advantages: It
needs low computational power compared to other non-linear
controllers, therefore, it is more economical. Also, the fuzzy
controller does not depend on complex mathematical models. Two
different reactive power injection strategies are investigated in this
paper. Then conventional control structure is compared with the
proposed control structure in terms of speed, overshoot, and total
harmonic distortion (THD) index. Detailed simulations are
conducted by MATLAB SIMULINK. Simulation results confirm
the superiority of the proposed control structure over conventional
one in terms of speed, overshoot and THD index.
Index Terms—Fuzzy-logic, LVRT, Photovoltaic, Reactive power
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the share of Photovoltaic(PV) systems in
generating power is increased by a steep rate [1-3]. Therefore,
future grid-tied photovoltaic systems should perform like
traditional synchronous generators and have capabilities like
low voltage ride through (LVRT). A tremendous amount of
study has been carried out for enhancing this capability in
single-phase inverters [1, 4-8].
Most of these studies [4-8] are focused on the reactive power
injection strategies, inverter structure, and benchmarking of
grid faults. Moreover, these studies used conventional double
loop control structure, which is comprised of the inner current
control loop, and the outer voltage control loop (or power
control loop). These inner and outer control loops are based on
classic proportional integral (PI), and proportional-resonant
(PR) controllers. Unfortunately, these controllers lack certain
features such as excellent dynamic behavior, stability, and static
tracking accuracy [1].
Recently in [1], controller based on Model Predictive
Controller (MPC) was proposed to remedy the aforementioned
problems, in order to enhance the inverter performance in terms
of speed and overshoot. Unfortunately, the proposed control
structure has two major drawbacks: 1) MPC controller needs
high computational power and therefore is not economical 2)
The proposed structure performance was not compared with PR
controller in term of Total Harmonic Dissertation(THD) index.
Fuzzy logic was used for enhancing the PI controller [9, 10] and
PR controller [11, 12] performance. However, in all the former
studies, fuzzy-PI controllers (FPICs) and fuzzy-PR controllers
(FPRCs), were used as an inner control loop separately. In this
paper, a double loop control structure is proposed and uses
FPRC as an inner current control loop, and FPIC as an outer
power control loop. Hence, all of the inner and outer loop
parameters are self-tuned which lead to an enhanced dynamic
response. Furthermore, unlike former FPRCs [11, 12], the inner
loop FPRC compensate most prominent harmonics in addition
to the main frequency, therefore the injected current THD index
is decreased. The proposed control structure has advantages
such as easy implantation, being independent of complex
mathematical models, and THD index decreasing compared to
MPC controller.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: A brief
introduction of reactive power injection strategies is introduced
in section II. In section III, the conventional control structure is
investigated. FPRC and FPIC structures and fuzzy membership
functions are investigated in section IV. Simulation results are
illustrated in section V and the conclusion is presented in
section VI.

978-1-5386-7138-2/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 II. REACTIVE POWER INJECTION STRATEGIES
Reference [6] introduced three different reactive power
injection strategy for single-phase grid-tied PV systems.
Among them, two of the most extensive strategies are selected
and will be explained in the following section.
A. Constant Peak Current
In this strategy, reactive power is injected into the grid in a way
so injected current peak will remain constant. Hence, the
reliability of the inverter is increased [6]. The injected reactive
current is proportional to the voltage sag depth. Under this
situation, the injected active and reactive currents can be
calculated as
= 1− (1 − ) (1)
= (1 − ) (2)
In which is grid voltage in per unit, is rated Grid current
and ≥ 2 . More detail of current injection equations is
presented in [6].
B. Constant Active Power
Another way to inject reactive power to the grid is injecting in
a way that active power remains constant. Hence, the PV
remains at the maximum power point and delivers maximum
active power to the grid during a voltage sag. Under this
situation, the injected active and reactive currents can be
calculated as
1 high
= (3)
= (1 − ) The harmonic compensator acts like proportional resonant
(4)
When ≤ 0.5, the injected active power should set to zero,
according to the grid codes [6].
Figure 1. Conventional control structure.
III. CONVENTIONAL CONTROL STRUCTURE
Fig.1 depicts the conventional control structure [5-7, 9]. As it
can be seen in fig.1, the conventional control structure is
comprised of two loops, the inner loop for controlling the
current, and the outer loop for controlling the injected active
and reactive power. DC/DC converter is used to keep the DC-
link voltage constant, and its controller structure is out of this
paper scope.
A. Inner Control Loop
Clarke transformation (abc→αβ), the instantaneous power
theory, is used because of its benefits like direct and instinctive
active power and reactive power control [9]. Power calculation
scheme is based on the second-order generalized integer
(SOGI) [10]. Also, the PR controller is used for the inner
current control loop, because of advantages like excellent static
accuracy for tracking sinusoidal reference, and its ability to
reject certain low order harmonics[11-13]. The PR transfer
function with compensation of 3rd, 5th, and 7th can be given
as:
( )= + + (5)
+ + (ℎ )
, ,
Whereas , , and represent proportional, resonant and
cascaded low order resonant blocks (harmonic compensator)
coefficients.
It is well known that high leads to an increased harmonic
impedance, which leads to lower THD [10]. On the other hand,
causes high overshoots and stability problems. Also,
high leads to faster dynamics in the cost of high THD [11].
converter for selected low order harmonics, with the reference
set to zero [12]. Similar to the resonant coefficient, harmonic
compensator (HC) coefficients should be set high in order to
achieve fast dynamics.
Furthermore, like resonant coefficient, high HC coefficients
may lead to stability problem.
B. Outer Control Loop
Power control is used as an outer control loop; two PI
controllers are used for tracking the reference active and reactive
power. General PI controller relation can be expressed as
( )= + (6)
Whereas and represent proportional and integral
coefficients respectively. Like PR controller, high results in
fast dynamic in the cost of high overshoot, and stability
problems. High , also introduces fast dynamic and like it
will cause high overshoot.
IV. PROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTURE
Various off-line tuning methods, like the Ziegler–Nichols
method, can be used for tuning PI controllers. Also, reference
[13] introduces Ziegler–Nichols based tuning method for PR
controllers. In [10], the design procedure for the PR controller
in PV application was introduced. All of these works share the
same disadvantage: based on the aforementioned reasons, the
trade-off should be made among factors like overshoot, THD,
fast dynamic, and stability margin.
A. FPIC and FPRC Design
As described in previous sections, to improve the performance
of conventional control structure, fuzzy logic is used in this
paper. Both parameters of inner and outer control loops are self-
tuned based on fuzzy approach. Fig.2 illustrates the structure of
FPRC and FPIC. Error ( ) and change of error ( ) are
sampled as inputs. As outputs of the fuzzy logic controller
, and , , are fed to outer control loop PI
controllers . Also, and , are fed to inner control
loop PR controller. Whereas , , and , represent
proportional and integral coefficients of outer loop PI
controllers. Also, and , stand for proportional,
resonant and cascaded resonant blocks coefficient for the inner
control loop.
The coefficient for main frequency, and cascaded resonant
blocks for compensating low order harmonics, are considered
Figure 2. Structure of FPRC and FPRI.
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Membership functions a. input variables b.
output variables.
equal. , ,.. are gains for normalizing the inputs and outputs
of the fuzzy logic controllers.
Fig.3 depicts membership functions of input and output
parameters of fuzzy control. Seven triangular membership
functions are used for each input.
(NL, NM, NS, ZE, PS, PM, and PL stand for negative large,
negative medium, negative small, zero, positive small, positive
medium and positive large respectively.)
As it is shown in fig.3, two membership functions are used for
fuzzy outputs. S and B represent small and big respectively.
Mamdani type fuzzy logic system is used for designing FPIC
and FPRC. Min-max compositions are used, and the output
function, defuzzification, is done based on centroid method.
Tables 1 and 2 show the rules for , , and
, , , respectively. In [13], six types of fuzzy-PID
structures are introduced. Two-input FLC structure with coupled
rules is used for designing FPRC and FPIC in this study. The
basic rule base of two-input FLC structure can be expressed as
[13] :
IF IS AND IS
THEN IS
The most significant feature of the proposed structure is its fast
dynamic since both of inner and outer loop parameters are tuned
on-line.
One can observe that the same structure and rule system is used
for PI, PR and resonant blocks parameters, that is based on the
following reasons:
1) Proportional coefficient has the same function in both
PI and PR controllers.
 TABLE I. simulations, and observing the effect of changing normalizing
FUZZY CONTROL RULES FOR , , ,
gains on the result. Also, in [16] evolutionary computing
(Genetic Algorithms) was used for obtaining optimal
NL NM NS ZE PS PM PL normalizing factor. In this paper normalizing gains were
NL B B B B B B B obtained based on computer simulations.
NM S B B B B B S
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
NS S S B B B S S
ZE S S S B S S S In this section, a comparative study is carried out between the
PS S S B B B S S conventional control structure and proposed control structure,
PM S B B B B B S in terms of overshoot, dynamic response, and THD. Two case
PL B B B B B B B studies are investigated: reactive power injection with constant
active power strategy, and constant current peak strategy.
TABLE II. Detailed simulations carried out with MATLAB SIMULINK.
FUZZY CONTROL RULES FOR , , Table III demonstrates the simulated system parameters.
NL NM NS ZE PS PM PL Figs 3.a and 3.b depict injected reactive and active power, with
NL B B B B B B B constant active power strategy for conventional and proposed
NM B S S S S S B control structure. In all of the case studies 0.4 p.u voltage sag
NS B B S S S B B occurs at t=0.5s, and at the t=1s the fault is cleared. As
ZE B B B S B B B mentioned before, in the classical PR and PI controllers, the
PS B B S S S B B trade-off should be made among factors like: overshoot and fast
PM B S S S S S B dynamic.
PL B B B B B B B One can observe, that the proposed control structure has better
performance in terms of overshoot and fast dynamic. At the
2) The resonant part of the PR controller introduces t=0s, PV system starts to inject active power at MPPT mode.
infinity gain at the main frequency as the integral part of the PI As it can be seen in Fig.3.a, proposed control structure tracks
controller introduces infinity gain at DC component. That is to reference active power faster, and with lower overshoot. Also,
say, conceptually, the resonant part of the PR controller can be one can observe, from fig.3.a, that proposed control structure
viewed as a general integrator of AC components. Therefore, it has a softer performance at the=1s. That is to say, the proposed
has the same function of integral part of PI controller[12]. structure tracks reference active power with lower overshoot.
3) Low order resonant blocks introduce infinity gain at As it can be seen in fig.3.b, injected reactive power, with the
selected harmonics. Hence, their combination with the proposed control structure, has lower oscillation compared with
proportion part acts like a PR controller for selected harmonics the conventional control structure. At t=0.5s, when voltage sag
with the reference set to zero. This leads to rejecting the low occurs, PV system starts to inject reactive power to the grid.
order harmonics. In other words, their parameters can be tuned
by the same logic that is used for tuning the PI and the PR TABLE III.
parameters. SIMULATED SYSTEM PARAMETERS
Rule base of FPRC and FPIC are based on the same
procedure that has been used in previous studies [13-15]. In the
beginning, both FPRC and FPIC should have a fast dynamic, 230V
therefore big control signal is needed. The differential of
proportional, integral, resonant ,and cascaded resonant blocks 50 Hz
coefficients is gradually decreasing with degrading of and . 1000W
Therefore, systems approach stable state with low overshoot. =3 , = 0.02
When the system reaches a stable state, a high proportional
coefficient is needed to obtain less static error [14], and in the ℎ 10
case of FPRC to obtain low THD [10]. On the other hand, in a =4 , =
−
stable state low integral, resonant, and low order cascaded 700μ , = 2.35μ
resonant blocks coefficients are needed to increase the 220 μ
robustness and stability of the system. − 400V
B. Normalizing Gains = 2, = 53 –Active
power
Normalizing gains ( , ,.. ) play an important role in the
= 1.5, = 51 –
performance of both FPRC and FPIC. According to [13] , a Reactive power
generic analysis for obtaining optimal normalizing gains is
extremely difficult, especially for a coupled double input fuzzy = 30, = , =

system, which is used in this study. The nonlinear tuning of 3000
normalizing gains can be achieved by means of computer
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 3. Comparison between proposed and conventional control structure.
a. constant active power strategy active power
b. constant active power strategy reactive power
c. constant current peak strategy active power
d. constant current peak strategy reactive power

It can be seen in fig.3.b that the proposed control structure has
faster dynamic at the start of voltage sag and has lower
overshoot when fault is cleared at t=1s.
Figs 3.c and 3.d illustrate the injected reactive and active
power with constant current peak strategy. As it can be seen in
figs 3.c and 3.d, the proposed control structure shows a better
performance in terms of dynamic and overshoot.
Therefore, it can be concluded that proposed control structure
has better performance in both reactive power injection
strategies Figs 4.a and 4.b show comparison between THD
indexes under proposed, and conventional control structure for
constant active power and constant current peak strategy. As it
can be seen in both reactive power injection strategies, THD is
suppressed by the proposed control structure.

(a)
(b)
Figure 4. Comparison between proposed and conventional control structure.
a. constant active power strategy THD index
b. constant current peak strategy THD index
 VI. CONCLUSION
LVRT capability is one of the most important features in future
grid-tied photovoltaic systems. Fast dynamic, low overshoot
and excellent power quality are the most critical aspects of
injecting reactive current during a grid fault. In this paper, a
novel double loop control structure was proposed. Because of
the similar function of PI controller, PR controller, resonant
blocks single fuzzy logic structure, and rule base were used for
on-line self-tuning of their parameters. Furthermore, since both
the inner loop and outer loop parameters are self-tuned online,
fast and soft (low over-shoot) dynamic response is achieved.
Also, because of self-tuning parameters of cascaded resonant
blocks in addition to the resonant part parameter, THD index of
injected current is reduced. Several simulation scenarios were
carried out to validate the proposed control structure excellence
over the conventional one. Results from constant current and
constant active power, reactive power injection strategies were
presented for both, conventional and proposed control
structure. The presented results validated the superiority of the
proposed structure over the conventional one, in terms of speed,
overshoot and THD index. In future work, obtaining optimal
normalizing gains for inner and outer loop based on
evolutionary algorithms will be investigated. Also, in this paper
distribution grid was modeled as a thevenin equivalent circuit,
since the aim of this paper is focused on developing novel
control structure for a grid-connected converter. However, in
future work, the results will be studied in the presence of the
IEEE test cases on radial feeders.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Z. Bighash, S. M. Sadeghzadeh, E. Ebrahimzadeh, and F.
Blaabjerg, "Improving performance of LVRT capability in single-
phase grid-tied PV inverters by a model-predictive controller,"
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol.
98, pp. 176-188, 2018.
[2] M. K. Hossain and M. H. Ali, "Fuzzy logic controlled power
balancing for low voltage ride-through capability enhancement of
large-scale grid-connected PV plants," in Power and Energy
Conference (TPEC), IEEE Texas, 2017, pp. 1-6: IEEE.
[3] A. Merabet, L. Labib, and A. M. Ghias, "Robust Model Predictive
Control for Photovoltaic Inverter System with Grid Fault Ride-
Through Capability," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2017.
[4] Y. Yang, F. Blaabjerg, and Z. Zou, "Benchmarking of grid fault
modes in single-phase grid-connected photovoltaic systems," IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 2167-
2176, 2013.
[5] Y. Yang, F. Blaabjerg, and H. Wang, "Low-voltage ride-through of
single-phase transformerless photovoltaic inverters," IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1942-
1952, 2014.
[6] Y. Yang, H. Wang, and F. Blaabjerg, "Reactive power injection
strategies for single-phase photovoltaic systems considering grid
requirements," IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 50,
no. 6, pp. 4065-4076, 2014.
[7] Y. Yang, P. Enjeti, F. Blaabjerg, and H. Wang, "Wide-scale
adoption of photovoltaic energy: Grid code modifications are
explored in the distribution grid," IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 21-31, 2015.
[8] P. Mohammadi, A. Eskandari, J. Milimonfared, and J. Moghani,
"LVRT capability enhancement of single-phase grid connected PV
array with coupled supercapacitor," in Power Electronics, Drives
Systems and Technologies Conference (PEDSTC), 2018 9th
Annual, 2018, pp. 193-198: IEEE.
[9] G. Tsengenes and G. Adamidis, "Comparative evaluation of fuzzy-
PI and PI control methods for a three phase grid connected inverter,"
in Power Electronics and Applications (EPE 2011), Proceedings of
the 2011-14th European Conference on, 2011, pp. 1-10: IEEE.
[10] Z. Wang and T. Ahn, "Design of the optimal self-tuning fuzzy-PI
controller for rectifier current control in HVDC system," in Control
Conference, 2006. CCC 2006. Chinese, 2006, pp. 1224-1227: IEEE.
[11] X. Duan and H. Zhang, "Quasi-proportional resonant control of the
LCL-type grid-connected inverter based on fuzzy control and self-
tuning of fuzzy parameters," in Control And Decision Conference
(CCDC), 2017 29th Chinese, 2017, pp. 1793-1797: IEEE.
[12] H. Cai, W. Wei, Y. Peng, and H. Hu, "Fuzzy proportional-resonant
control strategy for three-phase inverters in islanded micro-grid with
nonlinear loads," in Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2014 IEEE
International Conference on, 2014, pp. 707-712: IEEE.
[13] Y. Yang, F. Blaabjerg, H. Wang, and M. G. Simoes, "Power control
flexibilities for grid-connected multi-functional photovoltaic
inverters," IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.
504-513, 2016.
[14] M. Ciobotaru, R. Teodorescu, and F. Blaabjerg, "A new single-
phase PLL structure based on second order generalized integrator,"
in Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 2006. PESC'06. 37th
IEEE, 2006, pp. 1-6: IEEE.
[15] R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, M. Liserre, and P. C. Loh,
"Proportional-resonant controllers and filters for grid-connected
voltage-source converters," IEE Proceedings-Electric Power
Applications, vol. 153, no. 5, pp. 750-762, 2006.
[16] H. Cha, T.-K. Vu, and J.-E. Kim, "Design and control of
Proportional-Resonant controller based Photovoltaic power
conditioning system," in Energy Conversion Congress and
Exposition, 2009. ECCE 2009. IEEE, 2009, pp. 2198-2205: IEEE.
[17] A. Vidal et al., "Assessment and optimization of the transient
response of proportional-resonant current controllers for distributed
power generation systems," IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1367-1383, 2013.
[18] L. F. A. Pereira and A. S. Bazanella, "Tuning rules for proportional
resonant controllers," IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 2010-2017, 2015.
[19] G. K. Mann, B.-G. Hu, and R. G. Gosine, "Analysis of direct action
fuzzy PID controller structures," IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 371-
388, 1999.