770

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 42, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2006

Constant Boost Control of the Z -Source Inverter to

Minimize Current Ripple and Voltage Stress
Miaosen Shen, Student Member, IEEE, Jin Wang, Member, IEEE, Alan Joseph, Fang Zheng Peng, Fellow, IEEE,
Leon M. Tolbert, Senior Member, IEEE, and Donald J. Adams, Member, IEEE

AbstractThis paper proposes two constant boost-control

methods for the Z-source inverter, which can obtain maximum
voltage gain at any given modulation index without producing any
low-frequency ripple that is related to the output frequency and
minimize the voltage stress at the same time. Thus, the Z-network
requirement will be independent of the output frequency and
determined only by the switching frequency. The relationship of
voltage gain to modulation index is analyzed in detail and verified
by simulation and experiments.
Index TermsPulsewidth modulation (PWM), voltage boost,
Z-source inverter.

I. I NTRODUCTION

Fig. 1. Z-source inverter.

N A traditional voltage-source inverter, the two switches of

the same-phase leg can never be gated on at the same time
because doing so would cause a short circuit (shoot through)
to occur, which would destroy the inverter. In addition, the
maximum output voltage obtainable can never exceed the dc
bus voltage. These limitations can be overcome by the new
Z-source inverter [1], shown in Fig. 1, which uses an impedance network (Z network) to replace the traditional dc
link. The Z-source inverter advantageously utilizes the shootthrough states to boost the dc-bus voltage by gating on both
the upper and lower switches of a phase leg. Therefore, the
Z-source inverter can buck and boost voltage to a desired output
voltage that is greater than the available dc bus voltage. In
addition, the reliability of the inverter is greatly improved because the shoot through caused by electromagnetic interference
(EMI) noise can no longer destroy the circuit. Thus, it provides
a low-cost, reliable, and highly efficient single-stage structure
for buck and boost power conversion.

Paper IPCSD-06-005, presented at the 2004 Industry Applications Society

Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, October 37, and approved for publication in the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Industrial Power
Converter Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. Manuscript
submitted for review October 15, 2004 and released for publication February
10, 2006. This work was supported in part by the DoE FreedomCar Program via
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and in part by the National Science Foundation
under Grant 0424039.
M. Shen, A. Joseph, and F. Z. Peng are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]).
J. Wang is with Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 48120-1261 USA
(e-mail: [email protected]).
L. M. Tolbert is with the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-2100
USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
D. J. Adams is with National Transportation Research Center, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Knoxville, TN 37932 USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2006.872927

Fig. 2.

Carrier-based PWM for traditional voltage-source inverter.

Pulsewidth-modulation (PWM) control for the Z-source

inverter has to be modified to utilize the shoot-through states
for voltage boost. Fig. 2 shows the traditional carrier-based
PWM scheme of the voltage-source inverter. There are eight
permissible switching states: six active and two zero states.
During the two zero states, the upper three or the lower three
switches are turned on simultaneously, thus shorting the output
terminals of the inverter and producing zero voltage to the
load. During one of the six active states, the dc voltage is
impressed across the load, positively or negatively. In addition
to the eight traditional switching states, the Z-source inverter
has several shoot-through zero states, during which both the
upper and lower switches of one or multiple same-phase legs

0093-9994/$20.00 2006 IEEE

SHEN et al.: BOOST CONTROL OF Z-SOURCE INVERTER TO MINIMIZE CURRENT RIPPLE AND VOLTAGE STRESS

are turned on. It is obvious that during a shoot-through zero

state, the output terminals of the inverter are shorted and the
output voltage to the load is zero. Therefore, the shoot-through
states have the same effect (i.e., zero voltage) to the load as
the traditional zero states; however, these shoot-through states
can boost the dc voltage. The active states have to be kept
unchanged to maintain the output voltage waveform, and the
traditional zero states can be replaced partially or entirely by
the shoot-through zero states depending on how much voltage
boost is needed.
Several modified PWM control methods for the Z-source
inverter based on traditional control methods were presented
in [7]. A simple control method was introduced in [1], which
uses two straight lines to control the shoot-through states. A
maximum boost control was presented in [2]. The proposed
method in [2] can achieve the minimum voltage stress across
the switches. However, it has the drawbacks of low-frequency
ripples on the Z-source network, which will be discussed in
detail in Section II. In this paper, we will present two control
methods to achieve maximum voltage boost/gain while maintaining a constant boost viewed from the Z-source network
and producing no low-frequency ripples associated with the
output frequency. This maximum constant boost control can
greatly reduce the L and C requirements of the Z-network.
The relationship of voltage boost and modulation index, as well
as the voltage stress on the devices, will be investigated and
verified by simulation and experiments.

771

Fig. 3. Maximum boost-control sketch map.

II. V OLTAGE B OOST , S TRESS , AND C URRENT R IPPLE

As described in [1], the voltage gain G of the Z-source
inverter can be expressed as
Vo
= MB
G=
Vdc /2

(1)

and
B=

1
1 2 TT0

(2)

where Vo is the peak value of the output phase voltage, Vdc

is the input dc voltage, M is the modulation index, and B is
the boost factor determined by the shoot-through time interval
(T0 ) over a switching cycle (T ), or the shoot-through duty ratio
(T0 /T = D0 ).
In [1], a simple boost-control method was used to control the
shoot-through duty ratio. In this case, the shoot-through time
per switching cycle is kept constant, thus having a constant
boost factor. As a result, the dc inductor current and capacitor
voltage have no ripples that are associated with the output frequency. As shown in [2], this simple boost controls obtainable
shoot-through duty ratio decreases with the increase of M , and
the resulting voltage stress across the devices is relatively high.
To obtain the maximum voltage boost, Peng et al. [2] presented
the maximum boost-control method, as shown in Fig. 3, which
shoots through all zero states entirely. Based on the map in
Fig. 3, the shoot-through duty cycle D0 varies at six times
the output frequency. As discussed in [2], the voltage boost

Fig. 4. Model of the circuit.

is inversely related to the shoot-though duty ratio; therefore,

the ripple in shoot-through duty ratio will result in ripple in
the current through the inductor, as well as in the voltage
across the capacitor. When the output frequency is low, the
inductor current ripple becomes significant, and a large inductor
is required.
To calculate the current ripple through the inductor, the
circuit can be modeled as in Fig. 4, where L is the inductor in
the Z-source network, VCap is the voltage across the capacitor
in the Z-source network, and Vi is the voltage fed to the inverter.
Neglecting the switching-frequency element, the average value
of Vi can be described as
V i = (1 D0 )BVdc .

(3)

From [2], we have


2 M sin t M sin t 23
D0 (t) =
2


 

3
1

=1
M cos t
< t <
(4)
2
3
6
2
where is the output angular frequency.
The boost factor is

B=
.
3 3M

(5)

772

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 42, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2006

As can be seen from (4), D0 has the minimum value at

t = (/3) and has the maximum value at t = (/6) or
t = (/2). Assuming the voltage across the capacitor is constant, the voltage ripple across the inductor Vpk2pk can be
approximated as a sinusoid with a peak-to-peak value of
Vpk2pk = Vi max Vi min




3
3
M
M cos
=
BVdc
2
2
6


3
3

2
4 M
Vdc .
=
3 3M

(6)

Therefore, the current ripple through the inductor becomes

(2 3 3)M Vdc
Vpk2pk

IL =
=
(7)
6L
24(3 3M )L
where L = L1 = L2 .
As can be seen from (7), the inductor has to be large for low
output frequency in order to limit the current ripple within a
certain range.
By turning all zero states into shoot-through states, the
Z-source inverter achieves the maximum boost and minimizes
the voltage stress. The maximum boost control presented in
[2] thus requires the minimum voltage rating for the switching
devices at a given available input voltage and desired output
voltage. However, this method introduces a low-frequency current ripple that is associated with the output frequency in the
inductor current and the capacitor voltage. This will cause a
higher requirement of the passive components when the output
frequency becomes very low. Therefore, the maximum boost
control is suitable for applications that have a fixed or relatively
high output frequency and the six-time frequency current ripple
is not a problem. For applications with variable and low output
frequency, the method may require a large dc inductor.

Fig. 5.

Sketch map of constant boost control.

must be kept the same from switching cycle to switching cycle

in order to maintain a constant boost. The basic point is to get
the maximum B while keeping it constant all the time. The
upper and lower envelope curves are periodical and are three
times the output frequency. There are two half-periods for both
curves in a cycle.
For the first half-period, [0, /3] in Fig. 5, the upper and
lower envelope curves can be expressed by (8) and (9),
respectively



(8)
M,
for 0 < <
Vp1 = 3M + sin
3
3


2

(9)
Vn1 = sin
M,
for 0 < < .
3
3
For the second half-period [/3, 2/3], the envelope curves
are expressed by (10) and (11), respectively

Vn2
III. M AXIMUM C ONSTANT B OOST C ONTROL
In order to reduce the volume and cost of the Z-source
network, we need to eliminate the low-frequency current ripple
by using a constant shoot-through duty ratio. At the same
time, a greater voltage boost for any given modulation index
is desired to reduce the voltage stress across the switches.
Fig. 5 shows the sketch map of the maximum constant boostcontrol method proposed in this paper, which achieves the
maximum voltage gain while always keeping the shoot-through
duty ratio constant. There are five modulation curves in this
control method: three reference signals Va , Vb , and Vc , and two
shoot-through envelope signals Vp and Vn . When the carrier
triangle wave is higher than the upper shoot-through envelope
Vp or lower than the bottom shoot-through envelope Vn , the
inverter is turned to a shoot-through zero state. In between, the
inverter switches in the same way as in the traditional carrierbased PWM control.
Because the boost factor is determined by the shoot-though
duty cycle, as expressed in (2), the shoot-through duty cycle

<<
3
3

<<
.
= sin()M 3M,
for
3
3

Vp2 = sin()M,

for

(10)
(11)

Obviously, the distance between these two curves determining the shoot-through duty ratio
is always constant for a
given modulation index M , that is, 3M . Therefore, the shootthrough duty ratio is constant and can be expressed as

2 3M
3M
T0
=
=1
.
(12)
T
2
2
The boost factor B and the voltage gain G can be calculated
as follows
B=

1
1
=
T0
12T
3M 1

(13)

G=

Vo
M
= MB =
.
Vdc /2
3M 1

(14)

The curve of voltage gain versus modulation index is shown

in Fig. 6.
The voltage gain approaches infinity when M decreases to 3/3.

SHEN et al.: BOOST CONTROL OF Z-SOURCE INVERTER TO MINIMIZE CURRENT RIPPLE AND VOLTAGE STRESS

Fig. 6.

Voltage gain (M B) versus M .

From Fig. 5, we can see that the upper shoot-through envelope is always equal to or higher than the maximum value
of the reference signals, and the lower shoot-through envelope
is always equal to or lower than the minimum value of the
reference signals. Therefore, the shoot-though states only occur
during the traditional zero states from the traditional carrierbased PWM control. As a result, this control maintains the
output waveform.
It can be easily seen from the above analysis that the shootthrough duty ratio is always constant. This can be reconfirmed from a different perspective below. For modulation index
M , the maximum active-state duty ratio Da max can be expressed as




M sin t M sin t 2
3
3
M
Da max = max
=
2
2
(15)
where Da max is the maximum duty ratio of the active states
combined in a switching cycle. In order to keep the active states
unchanged while making the shoot-through duty ratio always
constant, the maximum shoot-through duty ratio that can be
achieved is

3
M.
(16)
D0 max = 1 Da max = 1
2
This is exactly the same as the results shown in (12). To summarize, this control method produces the maximum constant boost
while minimizing the voltage stress.
The above-proposed maximum constant boost control
(Fig. 5) can be implemented alternatively by using thirdharmonic injection [3]. A sketch map of the third-harmonicinjection control method is shown in Fig. 7. A third-harmonic
component with 1/6 of the fundamental component is injected
to the three phase-voltage
references. As shown in Fig. 7, Va
reaches itspeak value ( 3/2)M while Vb is at its minimum
value ( 3/2)M at /3. Therefore, a unique feature can
be obtained: only two straight lines, Vp and Vn , are needed
to control the shoot-through time with the 1/6 (16%) thirdharmonic injection.

773

Fig. 7. Sketch map of constant boost control with third-harmonic injection.

Fig. 8. Voltage gain (M B) versus modulation index (M ).

From Fig. 7, the shoot-through duty ratio can be calculated by

3M
2 3M
T0
=
=1
(17)
T
2
2
which is identical to the previously proposed maximum constant boost-control method shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, the
voltage gain can also be calculated by the same equations (13)
and (14). The difference is that the third-harmonic-injection
control method has alarger modulation index M , which increased from 1 to 2/ 3. The voltage gain versus M is shown
in Fig. 8 for the third-harmonic-injection method. The voltage
gain can be
infinity to zero smoothly by increasing
varied from
M from 3/3 to 2/ 3 with shoot through,
as shown in the
solid curve, and then decreasing M from 2/ 3 to zero without
shoot through, as shown in the small dashed curve in Fig. 8.
IV. V OLTAGE -S TRESS C OMPARISON
To examine the voltage stress across the switching devices,
an equivalent dc voltage is introduced. The equivalent dc

774

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 42, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2006

Fig. 10.

Simulation and experimental configuration.

Fig. 11.

Simulation results with M = 0.812.

Fig. 9. Voltage-stress comparison of different control methods.

voltage is defined as the minimum dc voltage needed for the

traditional voltage-source inverter to produce an output voltage
Vo . Obviously, the equivalent dc voltage should be GVdc . The
ratio of the voltage stress to the equivalent dc voltage represents the cost that the Z-source inverter has to pay to achieve
voltage boost.
The voltage stress across the devices VS can be expressed as
VS = BVdc .

(18)

The ratios of the voltage stress to the equivalent dc voltage

VS /(GVdc ) for the simple control, maximum boost control, and
maximum constant boost control, respectively, proposed in [1]
and [2], and this paper, are summarized as follows:
BVdc
1
VS
for simple control
=
=2
GVdc
GVdc
G

VS
1
BVdc
3 3
for maximum boost
=
=
GVdc
GVdc

(19)
(20)

VS
BVdc
1
=
= 3 for maximum constant boost.
GVdc
GVdc
G
(21)
Fig. 9 shows the voltage-stress ratios. As can be seen
from Fig. 9, the proposed method has a much lower voltage
stress across the devices than the simple control, while having
a slightly higher voltage stress than the maximum control
method. The ideal voltage-stress ratio is one. The proposed
method in this paper is highly desirable for applications requiring a voltage gain of two to three. As we can see from
the curves, only an extra 30% voltage stress is needed to
achieve a voltage gain of 2.5. More importantly, the proposed
control method requires the minimum inductance and capacitance because the inductor current and capacitor voltage contain
no low-frequency ripples associated with the output voltage,
thus reducing the cost, volume, and weight of the Z-source
network.

V. S IMULATION AND E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS

To verify the proposed control strategies, simulations and
experiments were conducted with the configuration shown
in Fig. 10 and the following parameters: L1 = L2 = 1 mH
(60-Hz inductor), C1 = C2 = 1300 F; switching frequency =
10 kHz; output-filter cutoff frequency = 1 kHz, load
resistance = 5 /phase. The simulation results with the modulation index M = 0.812 without third-harmonic injection and
M = 1.1 with third-harmonic injection are shown in Figs. 11
and 12, respectively, where the input voltages are 170 and
250 V, respectively. Table I lists the theoretical voltage stress
and output line-to-line rms voltage based on the previous
analysis.
The simulation results in Figs. 11 and 12 are consistent with
the theoretical analysis, which verifies the previous analysis and
the control concept.
The experimental results with the same operating conditions
are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively, which agree well
with the analysis and simulation results. For a traditional inverter, to get the output voltage of 208 Vrms with modulation

SHEN et al.: BOOST CONTROL OF Z-SOURCE INVERTER TO MINIMIZE CURRENT RIPPLE AND VOLTAGE STRESS

775

Fig. 14. Experimental results with Vdc = 250 V and M = 1.1.

Fig. 12. Simulation results with M = 1.1.

TABLE I
THEORETICAL VOLTAGE STRESS AND OUTPUT VOLTAGE UNDER
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS

Fig. 15. Detailed simulation result of the PN voltage.

Fig. 13. Experimental results with Vdc = 170 V and M = 0.812.

index of one, 340 V dc is required. With boost, the Z-source

inverter can produce 208 Vrms with only half of the dc link
voltage, 170 V. At the same time, the voltage stress across the
devices is 418 V, which is allowable for the 600-V devices used
in the experimental setup.
Figs. 15 and 16 show the simulation and experimental results
of detailed Vpn . The Z-source inverters PN voltage (Vi in
Fig. 1) is no longer a constant dc unlike the traditional voltagesource inverter. It can be clearly seen from the figures that
the PN voltage becomes zero when all the six switches are
turned on to produce a shoot-through state and a constant level
of (2VCap Vdc ) during active states. Also, during the shootthrough period, the capacitor is charging the inductor, which is
verified by Fig. 16, where we can see that the inductor current
increases during the shoot-through state.
Also, from the simulation and experimental results, it is
evident that there are no low-frequency (6) ripples in the
inductor current, which was clearly observed in the maximum

776

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 42, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2006

Fig.17. Simulation results of the harmonic contents with and without shoot
through.
Fig. 16. Detailed experimental results of the PN voltage.

TABLE II
THEORETICAL VOLTAGE RELATIONSHIP USING SIMPLE CONTROL

boost control proposed in [2]. The proposed maximum constant boost control only has switching-frequency ripples in the
inductor current. The switching-frequency current ripple can
be estimated by the current increase during the shoot-through
state. For a given modulation index M , the longest shootthrough period is




1M
3
M
T0 = 1
TS
2
2

1 + (1 3)M
TS
=
2

(22)

where TS is the switching cycle. The maximum switchingfrequency current ripple Ir is

VCap 1 + (1
Ir =
L
2

3)M

TS

1 + (1 3)M
TS
=
2L
3M 1

3
2 M Vdc

(23)

where VCap is the voltage across the capacitor of the Z-source

network. From (23), with the same input voltage, the current
ripple increases with the decrease of the modulation index.
To verify that the control method does not introduce any
extra harmonic contents compared to the traditional voltagesource inverter with the same modulation index and same
output voltage, a simulation was conducted. Fig. 17 shows the
simulation results of harmonic contents of output line-to-line
voltage after the filter. The simulation condition of the case
with shoot through is M = 0.812 and Vdc = 170 V. To make
the output voltage the same, the input voltage of 418 V is used
for the case of the traditional PWM without shoot through at
a modulation index of 0.812. From the simulation results, the
harmonic contents of the two cases are almost exactly the same,
which means that the shoot through does not introduce any
harmonic to the output.

Fig. 18.

Simulation results of simple control.

To show the effectiveness of the proposed control method, a

comparison with the simple control in [1] is conducted. Using
the simple control method with modulation index of 0.812, in
order to achieve 208-Vrms output voltage, the requested input
voltage and resulting voltage stress is shown in Table II.
Simulation and experimental results are obtained with the
same setup as shown in Figs. 18 and 19, respectively. From
these results, by using the simple control, the input voltage

SHEN et al.: BOOST CONTROL OF Z-SOURCE INVERTER TO MINIMIZE CURRENT RIPPLE AND VOLTAGE STRESS

777

Miaosen Shen (S04) received the B.S. and M.S.

degrees in electrical engineering from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, in 2000 and 2003, respectively. He is currently working toward the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering at Michigan State
University, East Lansing.
His research interests include motor drives, powerfactor correction technique, and electronic ballast.

Fig. 19. Experimental results of simple control.

has to be as high as 260 V to achieve the same output

voltage versus 170-V input voltage by using the maximum
constant boost control while keeping the same voltage stress.
In other words, with the same input voltage and the same required output voltage, the maximum constant boost control can
achieve much lower voltage stress across the devices than the
simple control.
VI. C ONCLUSION
Two control methods to obtain the maximum voltage gain
with constant boost have been presented. They achieve maximum voltage boost without introducing any output-frequencyassociated 6 ripples. The relationship of the voltage gain and
the modulation index was analyzed in detail. Different control
methods have been compared. By using the proposed method,
the inverter can achieve the minimum passive-component requirements. Although the presented method will increase the
voltage stress across the devices by a small amount compared
to the maximum boost method in [2], this method is very
suitable for minimizing the Z-source network, especially in
low-frequency or variable-speed-drive applications. The control
methods have been verified by simulation and experiments.
R EFERENCES
[1] F. Z. Peng, Z-source inverter, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 2,
pp. 504510, Mar./Apr. 2003.
[2] F. Z. Peng, M. Shen, and Z. Qian, Maximum boost control of the Zsource inverter, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 833838,
Jul./Aug. 2005.
[3] D. A. Grant and J. A. Houldsworth, PWM ac motor drive employing ultrasonic carrier, in Proc. IEE Conf. PE-VSD, London, U.K., 1984
pp. 234240.
[4] B. K. Bose, Power Electronics and Variable Frequency Drives. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2002.
[5] P. T. Krein, Elements of Power Electronics. London, U.K.: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1998.
[6] W. Leonard, Control of Electric Drives. New York: Springer-Verlag,
1985.
[7] P. C. Loh, D. M. Vilathgamuwa, Y. S. Lai, G. T. Chua, and Y. Li, Pulsewidth modulation of Z-source inverters, in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS Annu.
Meeting, Seattle, WA, 2004, pp. 148155.

Jin Wang (S01M05) received the B.S. degree

from Xian Jiatong University, China, in 1998, the
M.S. degree from Wuhan University, China, in
2001, and the Ph.D. degree from Michigan State
University, East Lansing, in 2005, all in electrical
engineering.
He joined Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI,
in 2005. He is currently a Core Engineer for power
electronics systems in Fords hybrid vehicles. His
research interests include hybrid electric vehicles
(HEVs)/fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), multilevel converters, dcdc converters, flexible ac transmission systems (FACTs) devices,
and DSP-based control systems.

Alan Joseph received the B.S.E.E. degree from

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, in 1998, and the
M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Michigan
State University, East Lansing, in 2002.
He is with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Michigan State University,
where he conducts research in the areas of multilevel
converters, power conversion for alternative energy
sources, and variable-frequency drives.

Fang Zheng Peng (M92SM96F05) received

the B.S. degree from Wuhan University, China, in
1983, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Nagaoka
University of Technology, Japan, in 1987 and 1990,
respectively, all in electrical engineering.
He was with Toyo Electric Manufacturing Company, Ltd., Japan, from 1990 to 1992, as a Research
Scientist, and was engaged in research and development of active power filters, flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS) applications and motor drives.
From 1992 to 1994, he was with Tokyo Institute of
Technology as a Research Assistant Professor, where he initiated a multilevel
inverter program for FACTS applications and a speed-sensorless vector control
project. From 1994 to 2000, he was with Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL), as a Research Assistant Professor at the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, from 1994 to 1997, and was a Staff Member, Lead (Principal)
Scientist of the Power Electronics and Electric Machinery Research Center
at ORNL from 1997 to 2000. Since 2000, he has been with Michigan State
University, East Lansing, as an Associate Professor in the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering. He is the holder of over ten patents.
Dr. Peng has received many awards, including the 1996 First-Prize Paper
Award and the 1995 Second-Prize Paper Award of the Industrial Power Converter Committee at the IEEE/Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting;
the 1996 Advanced Technology Award of the Inventors Clubs of America,
Inc., the International Hall of Fame; the 1991 First-Prize Paper Award from
the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS; and the 1990 Best
Paper Award from the Transactions of the Institute of Electrical Engineers of
Japan; and the Promotion Award of the Electrical Academy. He was the Chair
of the Technical Committee for Rectifiers and Inverters of the IEEE Power
Electronics Society from 2001 to 2005 and was an Associate Editor for IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS from 1997 to 2001 and has been
an Associate Editor again since 2005.

778

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 42, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2006

Leon M. Tolbert (S88M91SM98) received the

B.E.E., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, in 1989, 1991, and 1999, respectively.
Since 1991, he has worked on several electrical
distribution projects at the three U.S. Department of
Energy plants in Oak Ridge, TN. In 1999, he joined
the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where
he is presently an Associate Professor. He is an
Adjunct Participant at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Power Electronics and Electric Machinery Research Center. He
does research in the areas of electric power conversion for distributed energy
sources, reactive power compensation, multilevel converters, hybrid electric
vehicles, and application of SiC power electronics.
Dr. Tolbert is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Tennessee.
He is the Chair of the Educational Activities Committee of the IEEE Power
Electronics Society and Chair of the Special Activities, Industrial Power
Converter Committee, IEEE Industry Applications Society. He is the recipient
of a National Science Foundation CAREER Award and the 2001 IEEE Industry
Applications Society Outstanding Young Member Award.

Donald J. Adams (M95) received the B.S. degree from the University of Mississippi, Oxford, in
1973, and the M.S. degree from the University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, in 1977, both in mechanical
engineering.
He is the Director of the Power Electronics and
Electric Machinery Research Center at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL), Knoxville, where he
has been employed for 29 years. His research interests include advanced inverters and adjustable-speed
drives, power transmission and distribution research
and development, electric machines, and power quality, efficiency, and power
measurements. He is the holder of seven patents with two pending, and has
authored numerous publications.
Mr. Adams is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Tennessee
and is on the Governing Board of the NSF Center for Power Electronics
Systems, which consists of five universities and over 80 industrial partners.