See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260763255

Comparison between PI and PR Current Controllers in Grid Connected PV

Inverters

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

61 1,422

3 authors, including:

Daniel Zammit Cyril Spiteri Staines

University of Malta University of Malta
22 PUBLICATIONS   122 CITATIONS    112 PUBLICATIONS   1,033 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integration of Energy Storage in DC Microgrids View project

Sensorless Speed/Position Estimation in Electrical Machines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Zammit on 11 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Electrical, Computer, Energetic, Electronic and Communication Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014

Comparison between PI and PR Current Controllers

in Grid Connected PV Inverters
D. Zammit, C. Spiteri Staines, M. Apap

between PI and PR current controllers used in grid-connected

Abstract—This paper presents a comparison between
Proportional Integral (PI) and Proportional Resonant (PR) current
controllers used in Grid Connected Photovoltaic (PV) Inverters. Both
simulation and experimental results will be presented. A 3kW Grid-
Connected PV Inverter was designed and constructed for this
research.
International Science Index, Electrical and Computer Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9997375
PV inverters is also presented, both by simulations and by
experimental tests.
Fig. 1 below shows a block diagram of the Grid-Connected
PV Inverter system connected to the grid through an LCL
filter.

Keywords—Inverters, Proportional-Integral Controller,

Proportional-Resonant Controller, Photovoltaic.

I. INTRODUCTION

G RID-CONNECTED PV Inverter systems have become an

important power generating method and the number of
these systems connected to the grid is always increasing.
Therefore it is important to limit the harmonics generated by
these inverters to limit adverse effects on the grid power
quality. This means that the design of these inverters should
Fig. 1 Block diagram of the Grid-Connected PV Inverter with the
follow harmonic limits set by IEEE and European IEC
LCL Filter
standards (IEEE 929, IEEE 1547 and IEC 61727) which
suggest limits for the current total harmonic distortion (THD) II. LCL FILTER AND CURRENT CONTROL
factor and also for the magnitude of each harmonic.
The current controller can have a significant effect on the A. LCL Filter
quality of the current supplied to the grid by the PV inverter, The transfer function of the LCL filter in terms of the
and therefore it is important that the controller provides a high inverter current Ii and the inverter voltage Ui, neglecting Rd, is:
quality sinusoidal output with minimal distortion to avoid
creating harmonics. Two controllers which are used in current- (s 2 + [ 1 ])
I 1 Lg C f (1)
controlled PV inverters are the PI controller with the grid G F ( s) = i =
U i Li s ( L + Lg )
voltage feed-forward and the PR controller. (s 2 + [ i ])
( Li Lg C f )
Comparison of the two controllers is presented and
discussed in [1]-[3] among others. A shortcoming with the PI
where, Li is the inverter side inductor
controller generally is that it is not able to follow a sinusoidal
Lg is the grid side inductor
reference without steady state error due to the dynamics of the
and Cf is the filter capacitor
integral term. The inability to track a sinusoidal reference
The resonant frequency of the filter is given by:
causes the need to use the grid voltage as a feed-forward term
to obtain a good dynamic response by helping the controller to
try to reach steady state faster. A current controller which is ( Li + Lg ) (2)
ω res =
more suited to operate with sinusoidal references and does not ( Li Lg C f )
suffer from the above mentioned drawback is the PR
controller. The PR controller provides gain at a certain The transfer function in (1) does not include the damping
frequency (resonant frequency) and almost no gain exists at resistor Rd. The introduction of Rd in series with the capacitor
the other frequencies. Cf increases stability and reduces resonance [4]. This method
In this paper the design of a single phase 3kW grid- of damping is a type of Passive Damping. Whilst there exist
connected PV inverter is presented, which includes the design other methods of passive damping and also more advanced
of the LCL filter and the current control. A comparison Active Damping methods, this particular damping method
used was considered enough for the aim and purpose of
Daniel Zammit, Prof. Cyril Spiteri Staines, and Dr Maurice Apap are with comparing the two current controllers due to its simplicity.
the Department of Industrial Electrical Power Conversion, University of The transfer function of the filter taking in consideration the
Malta, Msida, MSD 2080 (e-mail: daniel.zammit@um.edu.mt, cyril.spiteri-
staines@um.edu.mt, maurice.apap@um.edu.mt). damping resistor Rd is:

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(2) 2014 221 scholar.waset.org/1999.5/9997375
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Electrical, Computer, Energetic, Electronic and Communication Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014

Ii determines the dynamics of the system; bandwidth, phase and

G F (s) = gain margins [5].
Ui
(3) Equation (6) represents an ideal PR controller which can
Rd
(s 2 + s( ) +[ 1 ]) give stability problems because of the infinite gain. To avoid
1 Lg Lg C f
= these problems, the PR controller can be made non-ideal by
Li s [( L + L g ) Rd ] ( Li + L g )
(s 2 + s( i ) +[ ]) introducing damping as shown in (7) below.
Li Lg ( Li Lg C f )

B. PI Control with Grid Voltage Feed-Forward 2ω c s (7)

Fig. 2 below shows the PI current control strategy with the
grid voltage feed-forward (UG). Ii is the inverter output current
which is used as feedback, Ii* is the inverter current reference
and Ui* is the inverter voltage reference.
International Science Index, Electrical and Computer Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9997375
G PR ( s ) = K P + K I 2 2
s + 2ω c s + ω 0
where, ωc is the bandwidth around the ac frequency of ω0.
With (7) the gain of the PR controller at the ac frequency ω0
is now finite but it is still large enough to provide only a very
small steady state error. This equation also makes the
controller more easily realizable in digital systems due to their
finite precision [6].

III. LCL FILTER DESIGN

Fig. 2 The PI Current Control with the Grid Voltage Feed-Forward
The PI current controller GPI(s) is represented by:
KI
G PI ( s ) = K P +
s peak current, a switching frequency of 10kHz, filter cut-off
where, KP is the Proportional Gain term and KI is the Integral
term.
GF(s) represents the LCL filter. GD(s) represents the
processing delay of the microcontroller, which is typically
equal to the time of one sample Ts and is represented by:
1 (5)
G D ( s) =
1 + sTs
C. PR Control
Fig. 3 below shows the PR current control strategy. Ii is the
inverter output current which is used as feedback, Ii* is the
inverter current reference and Ui* is the inverter voltage
reference.
To perform comparison tests between the two current
control strategies, a 3kW Grid-Connected Inverter was
designed and constructed. The LCL filter was designed
following the procedure in [5], [7]. Designing for a dc-link
(4) voltage of 358V, maximum ripple current of 20% of the grid
frequency of 2kHz and the reactive power produced by the
capacitor not to exceed 5% of rated power, the following
values of the LCL filter were obtained: Li = 1.2mH, Lg =
0.7mH, Cf = 9µF and Rd = 8Ω.
IV. PI AND PR CONTROLLER DESIGN
A. PI Controller Design
The PI controller was designed for a damping factor in the
range of 0.8 and a natural frequency in the range of 3142
rad/sec, obtaining a Kp of 4.21 and KI of 2107. The damping
factor ζ obtained was 0.85 and the natural frequency ωn
obtained was 3360 rad/sec.
Fig. 4 shows the root locus plot in Matlab of the system
including the LCL filter, the processing delay, anti-aliasing
filter in the output current feedback path and the PI controller.
The root locus plot shows that the designed system is stable.

Fig. 3 The PR Current Control

The PR current controller GPR(s) is represented by:

s (6)
G PR ( s ) = K P + K I 2 2
s + ω0

where, KP is the Proportional Gain term, KI is the Integral

Gain term and ω0 is the resonant frequency.
The ideal resonant term on its own in the PR controller
provides an infinite gain at the ac frequency ω0 and no phase
shift and gain at the other frequencies [5]. The KP term

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(2) 2014 222 scholar.waset.org/1999.5/9997375
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Electrical, Computer, Energetic, Electronic and Communication Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014

300

200
0.965
0.92 0.84 0.74 0.6 0.42 0.22
aliasing filter in the output current feedback path and the PR
100 0.99
controller. The root locus plot shows that the designed system
800
0
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 is stable.
-100
0.99
1000 0.46 0.34 0.24 0.17 0.11 0.05

800
800
-200
0.965 0.64

600
600
0.92 0.84 0.74 0.6 0.42 0.22 400
-300 400
-800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 0.86

200
200
Root Locus
0
4
x 10 -200 200

1.5 1.4e+004 -400

0.86

0.62 0.48 0.36 0.26 0.16 0.08 400

1.2e+004 -600 600

0.64

0.78 1e+004 -800 800

1 0.46 0.34 0.24 0.17 0.11 0.05

-1000
8e+003 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100
1e+003
0

6e+003 Root Locus

0.5 0.94 4e+003 x 10
4
Imaginary Axis

1.5 1.4e+004
2e+003 0.62 0.48 0.36 0.26 0.16 0.08
1.2e+004
0 0.78 1e+004
1
2e+003 8e+003
-0.5 0.94 4e+003 6e+003
6e+003 0.5 0.94 4e+003

Imaginary Axis
8e+003 2e+003
-1 1e+004
0.78
0
1.2e+004
0.62 0.48 0.36 0.26 0.16 0.08 2e+003
-1.5 1.4e+004
-14000 -12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0
International Science Index, Electrical and Computer Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9997375

-0.5 0.94 4e+003

Real Axis 6e+003
8e+003
-1
Fig. 4 Root Locus of the Inverter with the PI Controller 0.78 1e+004
1.2e+004
0.62 0.48 0.36 0.26 0.16 0.08
-1.5 1.4e+004
-14000 -12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0
Fig. 5 below shows the open loop bode diagram of the Real Axis

system and Fig. 6 shows the closed loop bode diagram of the
Fig. 7 Root Locus of the Inverter with the PR Controller
system. From the open loop bode diagram, the Gain Margin
obtained is 17.5dB at a frequency of 9660rad/s and the Phase Fig. 8 below shows the open loop bode diagram of the
Margin obtained is 53.6deg at a frequency of 2180rad/s. system and Fig. 9 shows the closed loop bode diagram of the
Open Loop Bode Diagram
system. From the open loop bode diagram, the Gain Margin
100

50
obtained is 16.1dB at a frequency of 9760rad/s and the Phase
Margin obtained is 53.2deg at a frequency of 2570rad/s.
Magnitude (dB)

-50

-100 Open Loop Bode Diagram

100
-150
50
Magnitude (dB)

-200
-90 0
-135 -50
Phase (deg)

-180
-100
-225
-150
-270
-200
-315 0
-360
1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 -90
Phase (deg)

Frequency (rad/sec)
-180

Fig. 5 Open Loop Bode Diagram of the System with PI Control -270

-360
1 2 3 4 5 6
Closed Loop Bode Diagram 10 10 10 10 10 10
20 Frequency (rad/sec)

0
Magnitude (dB)

-20 Fig. 8 Open Loop Bode Diagram of the System with PR Control
-40

-60 Closed Loop Bode Diagram

20
-80
0
Magnitude (dB)

-100
45 -20

0 -40
Phase (deg)

-45 -60

-90 -80

-135 -100
45
-180 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10
Phase (deg)

Frequency (rad/sec) -45

-90
Fig. 6 Closed Loop Bode Diagram of the System with PI Control -135

-180 1
B. PR Controller Design 10 10
2
10
3
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
4
10
5
10
6

The PR controller was designed for a resonant frequency ω0

of 314.2rad/s (50Hz) and ωc was set to be 0.5rad/s, obtaining a Fig. 9 Closed Loop Bode Diagram of the System with PR Control
Kp of 5.1 and KI of 2073.15.
Fig. 7 below shows the root locus plot in Matlab of the
system including the LCL filter, the processing delay, anti-

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(2) 2014 223 scholar.waset.org/1999.5/9997375
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Electrical, Computer, Energetic, Electronic and Communication Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014

V. SIMULATIONS the PI and the PR controllers to compare the performance of

The 3kW Grid-Connected PV Inverter was modeled and the two current controllers. The inverter was connected to the
simulated in Simulink with PLECS blocksets, both in the s- grid using a variac to allow variation of the grid voltage for
domain and the z-domain. testing purposes. The dc link voltage was obtained using a dc
Figs. 10 and 11 below show the grid voltage (Vgrid), the power supply.
inverter current (Iinv), the grid current (Igrid) and the reference
current (Iref) from the simulation using the PI controller and
from the simulation using the PR controller, respectively.

400 30
Iinv
Igrid
300 Iref
20
Vgrid
200

10
100

Current (amps)
Voltage (volts)

0 0
International Science Index, Electrical and Computer Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9997375

-100
-10

-200

-20
-300

-400 -30
0.12 0.122 0.124 0.126 0.128 0.13 0.132 0.134 0.136 0.138 0.14
Time (sec) Fig. 12 3kW Grid-Connected PV Inverter Test Rig

Fig. 10 Grid Voltage, Inverter Current, Grid Current and Reference Figs. 13 and 14 below show the inverter output voltage, the
Current from Simulation using the PI Controller grid voltage and the grid current for a dc-link voltage of 300V,
a grid voltage of 150V and a preset value of 8A peak using the
PI controller and the PR controller, respectively.
400 30
Iinv
Igrid
300 Iref
20
Vgrid
200

10
100
Current (amps)
Voltage (volts)

0 0

-100
-10

-200

-20
-300

-400 -30
0.12 0.122 0.124 0.126 0.128 0.13 0.132 0.134 0.136 0.138 0.14
Time (sec)

Fig. 11 Grid Voltage, Inverter Current, Grid Current and Reference

Current from Simulation using the PR Controller

From the simulation results shown in Fig. 10 the PI current Fig. 13 Inverter Output Voltage, Grid Voltage and Grid Current with
a Preset Current of 8A Peak using the PI Controller
controller has a considerable steady state error when following
the reference current, resulting in a difference of
approximately 3% between the reference current and the
inverter current. The steady state error is less for the PR
current controller, practically negligible, as can be seen in the
simulation results in Fig. 11. The small steady state error in
the inverter current when using the PR controller is due to the
use of a non-ideal PR controller, as this avoids controller
stability problems.

VI. GRID-CONNECTED PV INVERTER TESTING

The constructed 3kW Grid-Connected PV Inverter test rig is
shown in Fig. 12 below. It was operated at a switching
frequency of 10kHz and was connected to a 50Hz grid supply.
The inverter was controlled by the dsPIC30F4011 Fig. 14 Inverter Output Voltage, Grid Voltage and Grid Current with
microcontroller from Microchip. The inverter was tested using a Preset Current of 8A Peak using the PR Controller

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(2) 2014 224 scholar.waset.org/1999.5/9997375
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Electrical, Computer, Energetic, Electronic and Communication Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014

Figs. 15 and 16 show the grid current for the grid-connected 10

inverter with the PI current controller and with the PR current 120
8

controller, respectively. Ig is the grid current, Igr is the 110 6

reconstructed grid current up to its 13th harmonic (a 100

5

% Grid Current Amplitude

90
reconstruction of the grid current by adding the first 13 lower 3

80 2

harmonics) and Igfund is the fundamental component of the grid 70

1

0
current. 60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

50

14 40
Ig
12 Igr 30
10 Igfund
20
8
10
6
Grid Current (A)

4 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2 Frequency (Hz)
0
-2
Fig. 17 Harmonic Spectrum of the Grid Current with PI Current
-4
-6 Control
-8
International Science Index, Electrical and Computer Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9997375

-10 10

-12 9

-14 8

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 110 7

Time (sec) 6
100
5

90 4
Fig. 15 Grid Current with PI Current Control
% Grid Current Amplitude
3
80
2

70 1
14 Ig 0
Igr 60 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
12
Igfund
10 50
8
40
6
Grid Current (A)

30
4
2 20
0
10
-2
0
-4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-6 Frequency (Hz)
-8
-10 Fig. 18 Harmonic Spectrum of the Grid Current with PR Current
-12
-14
Control
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Time (sec)
VII. COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Fig. 16 Grid Current with PR Current Control In the actual results obtained from the grid-connected
inverter there is a larger steady state error when using the PI
Figs. 17 and 18 show the harmonic spectrum of the grid current controller than when using the PR current controller,
current with the PI current controller and with the PR current as was expected. This agrees with the results obtained in the
controller, respectively. When the PI current controller was simulations.
used the fundamental component of the grid current reached When the inverter is controlled by the PI controller, with a
about 108.815% of the expected 8A peak, due to the steady 50Hz sinusoidal reference current of 8A peak, the resulting
state error drawback of the controller. The 3rd, 5th and 7th fundamental inverter current peak is approximately 8.72A, as
harmonics resulted about 8.252%, 4.771% and 2.728%, shown in Fig. 15. This results in a percentage error of
respectively. When the PR current controller was used the approximately 9%. The difference in the percentage error
fundamental component of the grid current reached 100% of between the simulation result and the practical result is due to
the expected 8A peak. The 3rd, 5th and 7th harmonics reached non-idealness in the practical inverter when compared to the
about 5.574%, 4.231% and 2.435%, respectively. ideal inverter modeled in the simulation.
When the inverter is controlled by the PR controller, for the
same sinusoidal reference current of 8A peak, the resulting
fundamental inverter current peak is 8A, as shown in Fig. 14.
This yields a 0% percentage error. Although a small error was
expected due to the fact that the non-ideal (damped) version of
the PR controller was used, it did not result in this case since
the value of ωc was kept very small at 0.5rad/s. And, thus the
resonant term gain, although reduced, it was still large enough
to follow the reference without problems. With the PR
controller there was no need for the grid voltage feed-forward

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(2) 2014 225 scholar.waset.org/1999.5/9997375
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Electrical, Computer, Energetic, Electronic and Communication Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014

term to track the current reference. [10] IEC 61727 2004 Standard Photovoltaic (PV) Systems – Characteristics
of the Utility Interface.
When considering the 3rd, 5th and 7th harmonics resulted in
the grid current with the two types of current controllers,
although in this case the harmonics are less when using the PR
current controller, in both cases are higher than the limits
allowed by the standard regulations. The IEEE 929 and IEEE
1547 standards allow a limit of 4% for each harmonic from 3rd
to 9th and 2% for 11th to 15th [8], [9]. The IEC 61727 standard
specifies similar limits [10]. As can be observed from the
results, the 3rd and 5th harmonics with both current controllers
are outside the limits. These harmonics result from the inverter
itself due to the non-linearities in the inverter and also from
the grid supply.
These results demonstrate that although the PR controller is
superior to the PI controller when following a sinusoidal
reference, additional harmonic compensation is needed in both
International Science Index, Electrical and Computer Engineering Vol:8, No:2, 2014 waset.org/Publication/9997375

cases to be compliant with the limits allowed by the standard

regulations.

VIII. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a comparison between standard PI
and PR current controllers in Grid-Connected PV Inverters.
Results from simulations and experimental analysis of a 3kW
inverter connected to the 50Hz grid are shown. Both
simulation and experimental results show that a PI controller
with voltage feed-forward suffered from a steady state error
when following a sinusoidal reference. In the experimental
results obtained when using the PI controller there was an
error of approximately 9% in the grid current fundamental in
following the current reference. This error is reduced to zero
when using the PR controller. Regarding the 3rd, 5th and 7th
harmonics in the grid current, from the results obtained with
both controllers the 3rd and 5th harmonics were outside the
permissible limits. Thus although these results demonstrate the
superiority of the PR controller for applications requiring
sinusoidal references, additional harmonic compensation is
needed in both cases to conform to the standard regulations.

REFERENCES
[1] R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, U. Borup, M. Liserre, “A New Control
Structure for Grid-Connected LCL PV Inverters with Zero Steady-State
Error and Selective Harmonic Compensation”, APEC’04 Nineteenth
Annual IEEE Conference, California, 2004.
[2] M. Liserre, R. Teodorescu, Z. Chen, “Grid Converters and their Control
in Distributed Power Generation Systems”, IECON 2005 Tutorial, 2005.
[3] M. Ciobotaru, R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, “Control of a Single-Phase
PV Inverter”, EPE2005, Dresden, 2005.
[4] V. Pradeep, A. Kolwalkar, R. Teichmann, “Optimized Filter Design for
IEEE 519 Compliant Grid Connected Inverters”, IICPE 2004, Mumbai,
India, 2004.
[5] R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre, P. Rodriguez, “Grid Converters for
Photovoltaic and Wind Power Systems”, Wiley, 2011.
[6] D. N. Zmood, D. G. Holmes, “Stationary Frame Current Regulation of
PWM Inverters with Zero Steady-State Error”, IEEE Transactions on
Power Electronics, Vol. 18, No. 3, May 2003.
[7] M. Liserre, F. Blaabjerg, S. Hansen, “Design and Control of an LCL-
Filter Based Three Phase Active Rectifier”, IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, Vol 41, No. 5, Sept/Oct 2005.
[8] IEEE 929 2000 Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of
Photovoltaic (PV) Systems.
[9] IEEE 1547 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with
Electric Power Systems.

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(2) 2014 226 scholar.waset.org/1999.5/9997375