# Control Strategy for Electric Vehicle Charging Station Power Converters with Active Functions

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Proposed Control Strategy

#### 2.1. Active Power Control

- In the G2C-P mode, the setpoint will be determined according to the power demanded by the EV battery, assuming that the customer will likely want to charge at different speeds (and, hence, at different power levels) associated with a choice on tariffs, which, in turn, might be associated with previous electric energy market negotiations done by the aggregator or the CS manager [31].
- On the other hand, with regard to the C2G-P mode, it seems logical that a customer who uses an FC would want to charge, not to discharge his/her EV. However, there might be reasons to do that, such as incentive tariffs. Besides, the possible use of the so-called Second Life Batteries (SLB) installed at the FC as back-up storage, implies both modes (G2C-P mode and C2G-P mode). According to Reference [32], by 2030, there will be one million battery packs retiring from electric vehicles per year. However, those used batteries could still retain up to 70%–80% of the original capacity that can be further utilized in less-demanding applications. The use of SLB would provide the CS with higher active power flow flexibility, which allows the bi-directional active power interchange with the grid and, hence, helps in the previously mentioned commercial tasks.

#### 2.2. Reactive Power Control

#### 2.3. Load Current Harmonics and Imbalance Reduction

## 3. Fast Charger Power Structure and Control System

#### 3.1. Topology

#### 3.2. Global Control System

## 4. Simulation Results and Analysis

#### 4.1. Case Study Description

- Case A. Charging the EV battery at maximum power: ${P}^{\ast}$ = 200 kW. CS demand without harmonics nor imbalance. RMS value of load current ${I}_{L}$ = 200 A.
- Case B. Discharging the battery and injecting fundamental reactive power: ${P}^{\ast}$ = −160 kW, ${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ = 120 kVAr. CS demand without harmonics and imbalance. RMS value of load current ${I}_{L}$ = 200 A.
- Case C. Charging the EV battery and demanding fundamental reactive power: ${P}^{\ast}$ = 120 kW and ${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ = −120 kVAr. CS demand with maximum emission limits of odd harmonic currents up to the 9th order established by the EN-IEC-61000-3-4 standard [41], in low-voltage power supply systems for equipment with rated current greater than 16 A and power less than 33${S}_{cc}$ (where ${S}_{cc}$ is the short-circuit power corresponding to the main connections). Harmonic content specified in Table 4 and RMS value of load current ${I}_{L}$ = 206.37 A.
- Case D. Charging the EV battery and injecting fundamental reactive power: ${P}^{\ast}$ = 120 kW and ${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ = 120 kVAr. CS demand with harmonic and unbalanced components. Maximum emission limits of odd harmonic currents as in case C and unbalanced load currents with ratios ${I}^{-}/{I}^{+}$ = 10%, ${I}^{0}/{I}^{+}$ = 10%. RMS value of the equivalent load current, according to Std. IEEE-1459:2010 [42], ${I}_{Le}$ = 208.3 A.
- Case E. Charging the EV battery and injecting fundamental reactive power: ${P}^{\ast}$ = 158 kW and ${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ = 120 kVAr. CS demand with the same harmonic and unbalanced components as in Case D. ${I}_{Le}$ = 208.3 A.

#### 4.2. Results

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## Nomenclature

APF | Active Power Filter |

ASRF | Auto-Adjustable Synchronous Reference Frame |

C2G-H-I mode | Charger to Grid Harmonic and Imbalance mode |

C2G-P mode | Charger to Grid mode |

CS | EV Charging Station facilitie |

CS-EMS | Charging Station facility Energy Management System |

DBC1 | Dead-Beat Controller 1 |

DBC2 | Dead-Beat Controller 2 |

dPF | Displacement Power Factor |

DSO | Distribution System Operator |

EV | Electric Vehicle |

FC | EV Fast Charging point |

G2C-P mode | Grid to Charger mode |

HD | Harmonic Distortion |

LV | Low Voltage |

MV | Medium Voltage |

PCC | Point of Common Coupling |

PHC | Perfect Harmonic Cancelation |

PQ | Power Quality |

QSC | Quadrature Sinusoidal Current |

RMS | Root Medium Square |

SC | Sinusoidal Current |

SLB | Second Life Batteries |

SOC | State Of Charge |

SRF | Synchronous Reference Frame |

STATCOM | Synchronous Compensator |

THD | Total Harmonic Distortion |

THIC | Total Harmonic and Imbalance Compensation |

V2G | Vehicle-To-Grid |

VSC | Voltage Source Converters |

VSI | Voltage Source Inverter |

VVO | Volt-Var Optimization |

$C$ | DC-Link Capacitor |

${d}_{1i}$ | Duty Cycle for the VSI |

${d}_{2}$ | Duty Cycle for the DC/DC converter |

${i}_{bat}$ | Battery Current |

${i}_{bat}^{\ast}$ | Reference Battery Current |

$i$ | Vector of Grid Currents |

${i}_{L}$ | Vector of Load Current Fraction Assigned to an FC |

${i}_{ch\left(0dq\right)}^{\ast}$ | Vector of Reference Charger Currents in the 0dq Reference Frame |

${i}_{ch}^{\ast}$ | Vector of Reference Charger Currents |

${i}_{chHI}^{\ast}$ | Vector of Harmonics Reference Charger Currents |

${i}_{chP}^{\ast}$ | Vector of Active Power Reference Charger Currents |

${i}_{chQ}^{\ast}$ | Vector of Reactive Power Reference Charger Currents |

${I}^{-}$ | RMS Value of the Negative-Sequence Fundamental Component of Current |

${I}^{+}$ | RMS Value of the Positive-Sequence Fundamental Component of Current |

${I}^{0}$ | RMS Value of Zero-Sequence Fundamental Component of Current |

${I}_{L}$ | RMS Value of Load Current |

${I}_{Le}$ | RMS Value of the Equivalent Load Current According to IEEE-1459:2010 |

${I}_{ch,N}$ | RMS Value of Nominal Charger Current |

${I}_{chHI,Max}$ | Maximum RMS Value of Reference Harmonic and Imbalance Currents |

${L}_{1},\text{}{L}_{2}$ | Charger Inductances |

${P}^{\ast}$ | Active Power Setpoint |

${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ | Fundamental Reactive Power Setpoint |

${R}_{1},\text{}{R}_{2}$ | Charger Resistances |

${T}_{ON}$ | Upper Switch On Time |

${T}_{S}$ | Switching Period |

${U}^{-}$ | RMS Value of the Negative-Sequence Fundamental Component of Voltage |

${U}^{+}$ | RMS Value of the Positive-Sequence Fundamental Component of Voltage |

${U}^{0}$ | RMS Value of the Zero-Sequence Fundamental Component of Voltage |

${U}_{DC}$ | DC Bus Voltage |

${U}_{DC}^{\ast}$ | DC Bus Reference Voltage |

${U}_{n,\text{}bat}$ | Battery Nominal Voltage |

$u$ | Vector of Grid Voltages |

${u}_{1\left(0dq\right)}^{+}$ | Vector of Positive-Sequence Fundamental Voltages in 0dq Reference Frame |

${u}_{1}^{+}$ | Vector of Positive-Sequence Fundamental Component Voltages |

${u}_{bat}$ | Battery Voltage |

${u}_{bat}^{\ast}$ | Reference Battery Voltage |

${\theta}_{1}^{+}$ | Fundamental Phase Angle |

## References

- International Energy Agency. Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Annual Report 2018. Available online: http://www.ieahev.org/assets/1/7/Report2019_WEB_New_(1).pdf (accessed on 10 August 2019).
- Botsford, C.; Szczepanek, A. Fast Charging vs Slow Charging: Pros and cons for the New Age of Electric Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 24th International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium & Exhibition 2009 (EVS 24), Stavanger, Norway, 13–16 May 2009; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- International Electrotechnical Comission. IEC 61851-1 Electric Vehicle Conductive Charging System–Part 1: General Requirements; IEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010; Volume 61851–1, p. 99. [Google Scholar]
- Wargers, A.; Kula, J.; Ortiz, F.; Rubio, D. European Distribution System Operators for Smart Grids. Smart Charging: Integrating a Large Widespread of Electric Cars in Electricity Distribution Grids. Available online: https://www.edsoforsmartgrids.eu/wp-content/uploads/EDSO-paper-on-electro-mobility-2.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2019).
- Spöttle, M.; Jörling, K.; Schimmel, M.; Staats, M.; Grizzel, L.; Jerram, L.; Drier, W.; Gartner, J. Charging Infrastructure for Electric Road Vehicles; European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; ISBN 978-92-846-2854-4. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; He, Z.; Yang, J. Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Station Unified Modelling and Stability Analysis in the dq Frame. Energies
**2018**, 11, 1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Manbachi, M.; Farhangi, H.; Palizban, A.; Arzanpour, S. Community Energy Storage impacts on smart grid adaptive Volt-VAR Optimization of distribution networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 7th International Symposium on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems (PEDG), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, N.; Wang, J.; Wang, Q.; Wei, N. Measurement-Based Harmonic Modeling of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station Using a Three-Phase Uncontrolled Rectifier. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2015**, 6, 1332–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, J.; Zhao, H.; Shen, Z.; Wang, A.; Cao, L.; Hu, E.; Wang, Z.; Song, X. Research on Harmonic Characteristics and Harmonic Counteraction Problem of EV Charging Station. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System Integration, EI2 2018, Beijing, China, 20–22 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 519-1992—IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1992; pp. 1–101.
- Martinenas, S.; Knezovic, K.; Marinelli, M. Management of Power Quality Issues in Low Voltage Networks Using Electric Vehicles: Experimental Validation. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.
**2017**, 32, 971–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ahmadi, A.; Tavakoli, A.; Jamborsalamati, P.; Rezaei, N.; Miveh, M.R.; Gandoman, F.H.; Heidari, A.; Nezhad, A.E. Power quality improvement in smart grids using electric vehicles: A review. IET Electr. Syst. Transp.
**2019**, 9, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brandao, D.I.; de Araújo, L.S.; Caldognetto, T.; Pomilio, J.A. Coordinated control of three- and single-phase inverters coexisting in low-voltage microgrids. Appl. Energy
**2018**, 228, 2050–2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xie, B.; Liu, Y.; Ji, Y.; Wang, J. Two-stage battery energy storage system (BESS) in AC microgrids with balanced state-of-charge and guaranteed small-signal stability. Energies
**2018**, 11, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jeong, S.; Kwon, J.; Kwon, B. High-Efficiency Bridgeless Single-Power-Conversion Battery Charger for Light Electric Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
**2019**, 66, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tashakor, N.; Farjah, E.; Ghanbari, T. A Bidirectional Battery Charger With Modular Integrated Charge Equalization Circuit. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2017**, 32, 2133–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Buja, G.; Bertoluzzo, M.; Fontana, C. Reactive Power Compensation Capabilities of V2G-Enabled Electric Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2017**, 32, 9447–9459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wickramasinghe Abeywardana, D.B.; Acuna, P.; Hredzak, B.; Aguilera, R.P.; Agelidis, V.G. Single-Phase Boost Inverter-Based Electric Vehicle Charger With Integrated Vehicle to Grid Reactive Power Compensation. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2018**, 33, 3462–3471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yan, X.; Li, J.; Zhang, B.; Jia, Z.; Tian, Y.; Zeng, H.; Lv, Z. Virtual synchronous motor based-control of a three-phase electric vehicle off-board charger for providing fast-charging service. Appl. Sci.
**2018**, 8, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Varajao, D.; Araujo, R.E.; Miranda, L.M.; Lopes, J.A.P. Modulation Strategy for a Single-Stage Bidirectional and Isolated AC-DC Matrix Converter for Energy Storage Systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
**2018**, 65, 3458–3468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, B.; Chen, H.; Guan, G.; Ding, T.; Yin, L. Simulation model of three-phase PWM rectifier charging station and harmonic analysis on grid. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT-Asia), Auckland, New Zealand, 4–7 December 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Kahia, B.; Bouafia, A.; Chaoui, A.; Zhang, Z.; Abdelrahem, M.; Kennel, R. A direct power control strategy for three level neutral-point-clamped rectifier under unbalanced grid voltage. Electr. Power Syst. Res.
**2018**, 161, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taghizadeh, S.; Hossain, M.J.; Lu, J.; Water, W. A unified multi-functional on-board EV charger for power-quality control in household networks. Appl. Energy
**2018**, 215, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Lu, X.; Zou, K.; Chen, C.; Bai, H. Imbalanced Load Regulation Based on Virtual Resistance of A Three-phase Four-wire Inverter for EV Vehicle-to-Home Applications. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif.
**2018**, 5, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Milanes-Montero, M.I.; Barrero-Gonzalez, F.; Pando-Acedo, J.; Gonzalez-Romera, E.; Romero-Cadaval, E.; Moreno-Munoz, A. Active, reactive and harmonic control for distributed energy micro-storage systems in smart communities homes. Energies
**2017**, 10, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Milanes-Montero, M.I.; Barrero-Gonzalez, F.; Pando-Acedo, J.; Gonzalez-Romera, E.; Romero-Cadaval, E.; Moreno-Munoz, A. Smart Community Electric Energy Micro-Storage Systems With Active Functions. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.
**2018**, 54, 1975–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, D.; Zhong, Q.; Wang, Y.; Liu, G. Modeling and control of a V2G charging station based on synchronverter technology. CSEE J. Power Energy Syst.
**2018**, 4, 326–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Monteiro, V.; Ferreira, J.C.; Nogueiras Melendez, A.A.; Couto, C.; Afonso, J.L. Experimental Validation of a Novel Architecture Based on a Dual-Stage Converter for Off-Board Fast Battery Chargers of Electric Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.
**2018**, 67, 1000–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mortezaei, A.; Abdul-Hak, M.; Simoes, M.G. A Bidirectional NPC-based Level 3 EV Charging System with Added Active Filter Functionality in Smart Grid Applications. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Transportation and Electrification Conference and Expo, ITEC, Long Beach, CA, USA, 13–15 June 2018; pp. 1065–1070. [Google Scholar]
- Czarnecki, L.S. Critical comments on the Conservative Power Theory (CPT). In Proceedings of the 12th Conference-Seminar: International School on Nonsinusoidal Currents and Compensation, ISNCC 2015—Conference Proceedings, Lagow, Poland, 15–18 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Clairand, J.M.; Rodriguez-Garcia, J.; Alvarez-Bel, C. Smart Charging for Electric Vehicle Aggregators Considering Users’ Preferences. IEEE Access
**2018**, 6, 54624–54635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hossain, E.; Murtaugh, D.; Mody, J.; Faruque, H.M.R.; Sunny, M.S.H.; Mohammad, N. A Comprehensive Review on Second-Life Batteries: Current State, Manufacturing Considerations, Applications, Impacts, Barriers Potential Solutions, Business Strategies, and Policies. IEEE Access
**2019**, 7, 73215–73252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Montero, M.I.M.; Cadaval, E.R.; González, F.B.; Milanés-Montero, M.I.; Romero-Cadaval, E.; Barrero-Gonzalez, F. Comparison of Control Strategies for Shunt Active Power Filters in Three-Phase Four-Wire Systems. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2007**, 22, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Milanés-Montero, M.I.; Romero-Cadaval, E.; Rico De Marcos, A.; Miñambres-Marcos, V.M.; Barrero-González, F. Novel method for synchronization to disturbed three-phase and single-phase systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, Lisbon, Portugal, 4–6 July 2007; pp. 860–865. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, S.; Pamshetti, V.B.; Singh, S.P. Time Horizon-based Model Predictive Volt/VAR Optimization for Smart Grid Enabled CVR in Presence of Electric Vehicle Charging Loads. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.
**2019**, 55, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guerrero-Martinez, M.A.; Milanes-Montero, M.I.; Barrero-Gonzalez, F.; Miñambres-Marcos, V.M.; Romero-Cadaval, E.; Gonzalez-Romera, E. A smart power electronic multiconverter for the residential sector. Sensors
**2017**, 17, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - EN 50160. Voltage Characteristics of Electricity Supplied by Public Electricity Networks; IEC: Genève, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- EN 61000-2-2. Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)—Part 2-2: Environment—Compatibility Levels for Low-Frequency Conducted Disturbances and Signalling in Public Low-Voltage Power Supply Systems; IEC: Genève, Switzerland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- CHAdeMO Association. Technical specifications of quick charger for the electric vehicle. CHAdeMO Protoc.
**2017**, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] - González-Castrillo, P.; Romero-Cadaval, E.; Milanés-Montero, M.I.; Barrero-González, F.; Guerrero-Martinez, M.A. A new criterion for selecting the inductors of an Active Power Line Conditioner. In Proceedings of the 2011 7th International Conference-Workshop Compatibility and Power Electronics, CPE 2011-Conference Proceedings, Tallinn, Estonia, 1–3 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
- IEC TS 61000-3-4:1998. Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)-Part. 3–4: Limits-Limitation of Emission of Harmonic Currents in Low-Voltage Power Supply Systems for Equipment with Rated Current Greater than 16 A; IEC: Genève, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- IEEE std. 1459 TM-2010 “IEEE Standard Definations for the Measurement of Electric Power Quantities Under Sinusoidal, Nonsinusoidal, Balanced, or Unbalanced Conditions”; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780738160580. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 2.**Three-phase topology for one fast charger and the other charging station facility’s unbalanced and non-linear loads.

**Figure 5.**Simulation results. Case A. Charging the EV battery at maximum power: ${P}^{\ast}$ = 200 kW. CS demand without harmonics nor imbalance: ${I}_{L}$ = 200 A.

**Figure 6.**Simulation results. Case B. Discharging the battery and injecting fundamental reactive power: ${P}^{\ast}$ = – 160 kW, ${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ = 120 kVAr. CS demand without harmonics. ${I}_{L}$ = 200 A.

**Figure 7.**Simulation results. Case C. Charging the EV battery and demanding fundamental reactive power: ${P}^{\ast}$ = 120 kW and ${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ = – 120 kVAr. CS demand with harmonic content specified in Table 2. ${I}_{L}$ = 206.37 A.

**Figure 8.**Simulation results. Case D. Charging the EV battery and injecting fundamental reactive power: ${P}^{\ast}$= 120 kW and ${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ = 120 kVAr. CS demand with harmonic and unbalanced components. ${I}_{Le}$ = 208.3 A.

**Figure 9.**Simulation results. Case E. Charging the EV battery and injecting fundamental reactive power: ${P}^{\ast}$= 158 kW and ${Q}_{1}^{\ast}$ = 120 kVAr. CS demand with the same harmonic and unbalanced components as in Case D. ${I}_{Le}$ = 208.3 A.

**Table 1.**EV charging modes according to IEC 61851-1 [3].

Charging Mode | Maximum Current | Maximum Charging Power | Charging Time for Recharging 20 kWh (^{1}) |
---|---|---|---|

Mode 1 | 16 A, AC, 1-phase | 3.7 kW | 5 h |

Mode 2 | 32 A, AC, 3-phase | 22 kW | 1 h |

Mode 3 | 63 A, AC, 3-phase | 44 kW | 0.5 h |

Mode 4 | 400 A, DC | approx. 200 kW | 6 min (^{2}) |

^{1}Sufficient for ca. 100–150 km electric driving.

^{2}Charging up to approx. 80% SOC.

Individual Harmonic Distortion (%) | Total Harmonic Distortion THD (%) | ${\mathit{U}}^{-}/{\mathit{U}}^{+}$ | ${\mathit{U}}^{0}/{\mathit{U}}^{+}$ | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

HD3 | HD5 | HD7 | HD9 | (%) | (%) | |

5 | 5.5 | 4 | 7.6 | 7.83 | 2 | 2 |

Parameter | Value | Unit |
---|---|---|

${R}_{1}$ | $1\times {10}^{-3}$ | Ω |

${L}_{1}$ | $0.5\times {10}^{-3}$ | H |

C | $2.2\times {10}^{-3}$ | F |

${R}_{2}$ | $1\times {10}^{-3}$ | Ω |

${L}_{2}$ | $5.2\times {10}^{-3}$ | H |

${U}_{DC}^{\ast}$ | 1200 | V |

${U}_{n,bat}$ (Battery nominal voltage) | 500 | V |

$SO{C}_{i}$ (initial battery SOC) | 40 | % |

**Table 4.**Harmonic content of the CS current (maximum limits established by EN-IEC-61000-3-4 for industrial consumers with power < 33${S}_{cc}$ ) for cases C-E.

Individual Harmonic Distortion (%) | Total Harmonic Distortion THD (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|

HD3 | HD5 | HD7 | HD9 | |

21.6 | 10.7 | 14.4 | 7.6 | 25.44 |

Variable | Total RMS Value (A) | Individual RMS Value (A) | THD (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

I | I_{1} | I_{3} | I_{5} | I_{7} | I_{9} | ||

Load current i_{L} | 206.37 | 200 | 43.2 | 21.4 | 14.4 | 7.6 | 25.44 |

Grid current i | 410.58 | 410.26 | 2.13 | 3.37 | 3.13 | 1.8 | 3.93 |

Charger current ich | 251.98 | 246.40 | 43.12 | 21.10 | 14.05 | 7.44 | 21.43 |

Variable | Phase | Total RMS (A) | Individual RMS Value (A) | THD (%) | ${\mathit{I}}^{-}\text{}$ | ${\mathit{I}}^{0}\text{}$ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

I | I_{1} | I_{3} | I_{5} | I_{7} | I_{9} | (A) | (A) | |||

Load current i_{L} | Phase a | 245.33 | 240 | 43.2 | 21.4 | 14.4 | 7.6 | 21.20 | 20 | 20 |

Phase b | 187.05 | 180 | 43.2 | 21.4 | 14.4 | 7.6 | 28.27 | |||

Phase c | 187.05 | 180 | 43.2 | 21.4 | 14.4 | 7.6 | 28.27 | |||

Grid current i | Phase a | 415.53 | 415.3 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 3.55 | 0.7 | 1.5 |

Phase b | 422.94 | 422.7 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 3.53 | |||

Phase c | 408.83 | 408.5 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 3.97 | |||

Charger current ich | Phase a | 221.82 | 215.5 | 43.1 | 21.2 | 14.0 | 7.4 | 24.34 | 20 | 18.6 |

Phase b | 274.02 | 268.9 | 43.2 | 21.1 | 14.1 | 7.4 | 19.55 | |||

Phase c | 261.17 | 255.8 | 43.2 | 21.1 | 14.1 | 7.3 | 20.68 |

Variable | Phase | Total RMS (A) | Individual RMS Value (A) | THD (%) | ${\mathit{I}}^{-}$ | ${\mathit{I}}^{0}\text{}$ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

I | I_{1} | I_{3} | I_{5} | I_{7} | I_{9} | (A) | (A) | |||

Load current i_{L} | Phase a | 245.33 | 240 | 43.2 | 21.4 | 14.4 | 7.6 | 21.20 | 20 | 20 |

Phase b | 187.05 | 180 | 43.2 | 21.4 | 14.4 | 7.6 | 28.27 | |||

Phase c | 187.05 | 180 | 43.2 | 21.4 | 14.4 | 7.6 | 28.27 | |||

Grid current i | Phase a | 495.58 | 493.8 | 32.3 | 16.1 | 11.1 | 5.7 | 8.25 | 15.0 | 15.8 |

Phase b | 455.14 | 453.3 | 32.5 | 16.1 | 11.1 | 5.7 | 9.05 | |||

Phase c | 451.78 | 449.9 | 32.4 | 16.2 | 11.2 | 5.6 | 9.14 | |||

Charger current ich | Phase a | 280 | 279.3 | 10.9 | 5.4 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 6.85 | 4.8 | 4.6 |

Phase b | 289.9 | 289.2 | 10.7 | 5.4 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 6.55 | |||

Phase c | 288.4 | 287.8 | 10.8 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 6.71 |

Case | S (kVA) | P (kW) | N (kVA) | Q_{1} (kVAr) | PF | dPF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

A | 202.4 | 200 | 31.08 | 0 | 0.99 | 1 |

B | 201.8 | −158.4 | 125.03 | −120.8 | 0.77 | 0.78 |

C | 186.11 | 118.96 | 143.12 | −121.6 | 0.64 | 0.69 |

D | 185.03 | 120.70 | 140.24 | 118.8 | 0.65 | 0.73 |

E | 200.9 | 158.8 | 123.06 | 118.6 | 0.80 | 0.82 |

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Barrero-González, F.; Milanés-Montero, M.I.; González-Romera, E.; Romero-Cadaval, E.; Roncero-Clemente, C.
Control Strategy for Electric Vehicle Charging Station Power Converters with Active Functions. *Energies* **2019**, *12*, 3971.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12203971

**AMA Style**

Barrero-González F, Milanés-Montero MI, González-Romera E, Romero-Cadaval E, Roncero-Clemente C.
Control Strategy for Electric Vehicle Charging Station Power Converters with Active Functions. *Energies*. 2019; 12(20):3971.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12203971

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Barrero-González, Fermín, María Isabel Milanés-Montero, Eva González-Romera, Enrique Romero-Cadaval, and Carlos Roncero-Clemente.
2019. "Control Strategy for Electric Vehicle Charging Station Power Converters with Active Functions" *Energies* 12, no. 20: 3971.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12203971