By Jin Wang, Yue Zhang, Mohamed Elshaer,

William Perdikakis, Chengcheng Yao,

Ke Zou, Zhuxian Xu, and Chingchi Chen

Nonisolated
Electric
Vehicle
Chargers K.COM/CH
ESKY

Their current status

ERSTOC

and future challenges.

©SHUTT

RANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION HAS unidirectional or bidirectional. Bidirectional chargers can

T
been gaining momentum in the past two be used to regulate the power flow from the battery pack
decades. Ground vehicle electrification is in vehicle-to-grid (V2G) and vehicle-to-home (V2H) appli-
the front-runner of this paradigm shift as cations, acting as distributed energy resources (DERs) and
electric vehicles slowly but steadily pene- providing ancillary functions to the grid. With minimum
trate the consumer market. Besides higher costs, one of add-on hardware, an onboard level 2 or level 3 battery
the main concerns related to vehicle electrification is charger could meet the peak power consumption of a
range anxiety, which is the result of the limited accessibili- typical American household, which is typically between
ty of charging ports and stations as well as the relatively 10 and 20 kW.
low energy density and cycle life of batteries. Lower cost, Most commercial onboard chargers are unidirectional
higher power, and more accessible battery chargers are level 1 and level 2 devices, while level 3 types are typically
among potential solutions to address the expense and off-board. These commercialized onboard/off-board char-
range anxiety issues. gers are often galvanically isolated from the electric grid,
Depending on the power level, the Society of Automo- as documented by two review papers by Yilmiz and Krein
tive Engineers (SAE) categorizes electrical vehicle chargers (2013) and Sakr et al. (2014). The galvanic isolation inserts
as level 1, level 2, and level 3. Level 1 devices access single- a large common mode (CM) impedance between the grid
phase power and charge at less than 1.92 kW. Level 2, and the electric vehicle, which greatly alleviates the elec-
with single- and three-phase inputs, covers the range tric safety concerns for end users and charging facility
from 1.92 to 19.2 kW. Level 3, which is also called fast operators. The most common approach to realize galvanic
charging, includes ratings of 19.2 kW and above. Consider- isolation with high power density is to use isolated dc–dc
ing the direction of the power flow, chargers can be converters with medium-frequency transformers. The iso-
lated dc–dc circuit is essentially three-stage, which
increases the complexity of the charger circuit and limits
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2021.3070935
Date of current version: 8 June 2021 charging efficiency.

rized licensed2325-5897/21©2021IEEE IEEE Elec

use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 trific
UTC fromation
IEEE Magazine / J UNE 2apply.
Xplore. Restrictions 021 23
 There are incentives to pursuing Lower cost, higher Review of Integrated Chargers
integrated chargers to simplify circuit and Nonisolated Electric
structures, lower costs, and achieve power, and more Vehicle Chargers
better efficiency and power density.
The concept of integrated charging accessible battery Isolated Integrated
for electric vehicles was introduced, chargers are among Charging Solutions
in 1985, by David Timmersch. The Figure 1 shows the general configura-
goal is to make dual use of existing potential solutions tion of the power train of an electric
onboard power electronics compo- vehicle. The traction inverter and bat-
nents as part of the charging system. to address the tery are typically connected via con-
In the early 1990s, a series of patents expense and range tactors. If isolated integrated charging
for integrated chargers by Rippel and should be realized, either a large num-
Cocconi were awarded. Since then, anxiety issues. ber of reconfiguration switches is
many different types of integrated needed or an isolated dc–dc converter
chargers have been proposed. stage has to be permanently inserted
Due to the desired low cost and between the battery pack and the trac-
minimal reconfiguration of the traditional electric tion inverter. Some research efforts have focused on realiz-
power train, most integrated charger solutions are non- ing isolation with machine windings. For example, as
isolated. They are seen not only as a potential low-cost reported in Thong and Pollock’s work, in 1999, isolated bat-
solution but also as an opportunity to enable onboard tery charging was achieved by adding an auxiliary winding,
level 3 fast charging. The high power rating and a poten- which was coupled with one of the windings of a two-
tial bidirectional capability also make them particularly phase switched reluctance machine in the traction drive.
suitable for V2G and V2H applications. As a result, there Another approach is to reconfigure a specially designed
have been multiple industrial efforts to bring inte- interior permanent magnet synchronous machine into a
grated nonisolated chargers to the market. But non- line-frequency transformer with multiple reconfiguration
isolated chargers are also known to have safety- and relays, as demonstrated by Haghbin et al. in 2011.
electromagnetic inference (EMI)-related challenges due
to a potentially large CM current and a lack of isolation Nonisolated Integrated Charging Solutions
against potential ground faults, as explored by Elshaer Although isolated integrated charging solutions have been
et al. in 2017. offered by academia, most industry-proposed solutions
feature nonisolated integrated topologies. This, on the one
hand, is due to the cost of an extra isolation stage, which
defeats the purpose of low-cost charging, and, on the other
hand, because of the complicated reconfiguration proce-
Battery Traction dures that are required. Single-phase, nonisolated integrat-
Pack Inverter Machine ed charging typically requires two cascaded power stages:
(Three-Phase,
an ac–dc stage for power factor control and a dc–dc stage.
Level 2)
Although three-phase-based charging can achieve good
current control with a single-stage ac–dc converter, two-
stage charger topologies are still widely studied due to the
Figure 1. The typical power train configuration of an electric vehicle. need for downward charging compatibility with single-
phase arrangements. Level 3 inte-
grated chargers are often expected
to be compatible with three-phase
Add-on CSR and single-phase networks; thus,
Traction Drive
Inverter vehicles can be charged at home
and at fast-charging stations.
Battery

Figure 2 presents the nonisolat-

A ed integrated charger topology pre-
B + sented in a patent filed by Renault
C in 2012. The two-stage circuit con-
–
Machine Winding sists of an add-on current source
With Neutral rectifier (CSR) as the grid-connect-
Point Access ed front end and a dc–dc converter
utilizing machine windings as
Figure 2. Renault’s integrated charger topology. CSR: current source rectifier. inductors and the traction driver

24 I E Elimited
rized licensed use E E l e cto:
t r iINDIAN
f i cati o nINSTITUTE
M agaz ineOF
/ JTECHNOLOGY
UN E 2021
DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Bidirectional Charge and Traction System

dc Link Battery
ac ~800 V dc Link

Battery
dc dc ~400 V

Electric Machine Inverter Booster

External dc Charger
Grid

Figure 3. The Continental “AllCharge” integrated topology, as showcased by Bruell et al. in 2016.

inverter as interleaved switching legs. During charging,

the CSR stage takes in electricity, maintains a good power TABLE 1. Electric vehicle charging safety
factor at the grid side, and provides a steady dc current
standards.
flow to the next dc–dc stage. Then, the electric machine Standard Safety Regulation
and the traction drive inverter function as an interleaved
SAE J1772 ŸŸ Grounding continuity
dc–dc converter to control the current to the battery. Earli-
ŸŸ Isolation between battery bus and vehicle
er commercially available vehicle models with the two- chassis
stage circuit topology can achieve 43 kW of charging ŸŸ Maximum onboard Y capacitance
power on the European three-phase grid. Newer models
SAE J1766 ŸŸ Minimum isolation resistances between dc/
follow the Combined Charging System standard and limit ac systems and conductive chassis
the power of the integrated charger to 22 kW.
SAE J2344 ŸŸ Requirements for single-point failure safety
In 2017, Continental announced its “AllCharge” integrat-
ŸŸ Limitations on ac body currents
ed solution, as depicted in Figure 3, which was presented by ŸŸ Regulation on isolation measuring and isola-
Bruell et al. in 2016 and publicized by the company. In this tion resistance requirements specifically for
case, the machine windings are connected to the grid, nonisolated chargers
functioning as a three-phase inductor, and the traction ŸŸ High-voltage isolation monitoring: compatibil-
ity of nonisolated chargers and ground fault
drive inverter is operated as a boost rectifier. The system
detection
also features a dc port that enables external fast dc char-
gers to be connected to the dc bus of the traction drive UL 2202 ŸŸ Touch current test and limitations on human
body impedance voltage drop
inverter. Apart from the previously mentioned efforts at
commercialization, other leading automotive manufactur- UL 943 ŸŸ The use and noise immunity test standards of
ers, such as Tesla, General Motors, and Hyundai, have their ground fault circuit interrupters
own patents for nonisolated integrated chargers. IEC 61851 ŸŸ Protective earth continuity monitoring
ISO 6469.3 ŸŸ Requirements for potential equalization of
Standards and Industrial Practices conductive parts and vehicle chassis
to Prevent Electric Hazards
Table 1 presents standards regulating electrical vehicle UL: Underwriters Laboratories; IEC: International Electrotechnical Commission; ISO:
International Organization for Standardization.
chargers to ensure the safety of both the end users and

IEEE Elec
rized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 trific
UTC fromation
IEEE Magazine / J UNE 2apply.
Xplore. Restrictions 021 25
 side insulation monitoring safe-
P guards only the charging system
and cannot shield end users due to
R1 its slow speed.
+ For high-voltage batteries, the
GFCI/ CM/DM Battery Fault
O Y Detection VBat isolation between the terminals
RCD Filter Charger
and the vehicle chassis is achieved
R2 by meeting specific isolation resis-
tance requirements. This insulation
N could be compromised as a result
PE of wire chafing, component aging,
contaminant intrusion, and motor
Vehicle Chassis
winding insulation faults. Thus, a
RN RG
battery side insulation monitoring
Utility Ground Local Ground
circuit is required. As shown in Fig-
ure 4, the typical insulation moni-
Figure 4. Protections against hazards for electric vehicle chargers. DM: differential mode; PE: toring circuit consists of a voltage
protective earth.
divider and detection circuits. The
fault detection circuit senses the
the system operation. These standards generally put CM voltage between battery bus and the point Y (the vehi-
emphasis on the following aspects: cle chassis). If the insulation between the battery termi-
xx grounding continuity monitoring of charging equip- nals (P and N) and the vehicle chassis is intact, the fault
ment detection circuit observes the normal state voltage of
xx isolation resistance and isolation monitoring of the VBat 6R 2 / ^R 1 + R 2 h@ . For isolated chargers, the sensed volt-
high-voltage battery bus age would deviate from the normal value when the insu-
xx the ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) and residual lation between the battery terminals (P/N) and the vehicle
current device (RCD) chassis is compromised. For nonisolated chargers, if the
xx the touch current requirement. same fault detection circuit is applied, a ground fault
Figure 4 diagrams protection schemes against electrical could always be reported by the monitoring system
hazards. To meet safety standards, aside from the general because the CM current can go through the nonisolated
requirement of the grounding continuity test, electrical charger and then the chassis, which could eventually flow
protection features in a typical electric vehicle charging through the resistor R2 and cause the detected voltage to
system consist of the following: differ from the normal value.
1) transformer isolation provided by the battery charger On the grid side, the GFCI or the RCD detects the
2) a battery side insulation monitoring system ground leakage current by summing all the line currents
3) a GFCI/RCD at the source side. together. GFCIs are used in the United States, with a trip
In general, isolated battery chargers have a large CM current of 5 mA, whereas RCDs typically trip at a 30-mA
impedance, thus providing significant fault impedance leakage current and are used in the United Kingdom,
and limiting the CM leakage current during normal opera- Japan, and Europe. Both devices are very sensitive to CM
tion. The transformer isolation and the GFCI/RCD pro- leakage current and are considered fast protection for
tect both the user and the system, whereas the battery both personnel and the system under normal and fault
conditions. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 943 regulates
GFCIs’ immunity against high-frequency CM distur-
TABLE 2. A comparison of protection bance, from 150 kHz to 230 MHz. However, it is still not
availability. uncommon for these devices to have nuisance tripping
issues in nonisolated systems because the power elec-
Nonisolated Isolated
Protection Charger Charger tronics typically switch at several (or several tenths of
one) kilohertz, which sits outside GFCIs’ immune fre-
Transformer isolation Not applicable Available quency range. With limited CM impedance, the leakage
(human/system safety)
current generated by the switching events could easily
GFCI/RCD Available Available reach high amplitudes and cause the nuisance tripping
(human/system safety) (susceptible to of the protection devices.
nuisance tripping)
Table 2 summarizes and compares applicable protec-
Battery insulation Not applicable Available tion features in isolated and nonisolated chargers. It can
monitoring be seen that among the three types of protection features,
(system safety)
only the GFCI would be applicable for nonisolated

26 I E Elimited
rized licensed use E E l e cto:
t r iINDIAN
f i cati o nINSTITUTE
M agaz ineOF
/ JTECHNOLOGY
UN E 2021
DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 chargers. Thus, for nonisolated char- With minimum add-on circuitry. The battery side EMI stan-
gers, it is essential to properly man- dard puts spectral limits on the mea-
age the CM current so that the GFCI hardware, an onboard sured noise inside the vehicle, as well.
can be connected during charging
without nuisance tripping. In prac- level 2 or level 3 CM Challenges and Nonisolated
tice, the touch current test, as defined battery charger could Charger Mitigation Techniques
in UL 2202, is considered the gold As identified in the preceding section,
standard and the most effective indi- meet the peak power the CM leakage current in nonisolat-
cator of personnel safety. The human ed charging systems needs proper
body impedance network, as defined
consumption of a mitigation so that the only available
in UL 2202, is provided in Figure 5. typical American protection, the GFCI, will not be lost.
According to the standard, the This section explores the potential
touch current level is considered household. CM leakage current issues by first
safe to end users when the output reviewing the grounding systems and
voltage (Vbodyout) is less than 0.25 then looking at circuit modeling and
root-mean-square (RMS) volts. the potential risks of leakage current in nonisolated
EMI-related considerations for integrated chargers chargers. Possible mitigation techniques are discussed at
often involve the following: the end.
xx the CM EMI to the grid
xx the CM EMI to the battery bus Overview of Grounding Systems
xx the leakage current through the vehicle chassis. Different grounding systems have a major impact on sys-
CM EMI standards are often open-formed to protect tem/personnel safety and noise propagation paths. Earth–
power sources. In the case of bidirectional chargers, EMI earth (TT), earth–neutral (TN), and isolated earth (IT) are
standards are imposed on both the grid side and the the three main types of grounding systems. The TT
battery side. A larger CM noise current is expected in grounding system is widely adopted in Japan, France, Italy,
nonisolated chargers, as the equivalent CM impedance and Egypt. It is characterized by a high-impedance return
is significantly lower than in the isolated chargers. Part path for fault and noise currents. As shown in Figure 6, the
of the noise current would become an undesired emis- grid is connected to the utility ground through an elec-
sion to the grid and the battery bus, and the rest would trode impedance RN (usually around 10 X), and the vehicle
circulate inside the vehicle chassis. This is potentially chassis is connected to the local ground through another
dangerous since the noise current could interfere with grounding impedance RG (it is usually lower than 100 X,
the other circuits, as the vehicle chassis serves as the but it could go up to several hundreds of ohms.). In this
common ground for all onboard circuitry. Bulky CM fil-
ters could be inevitable in the charger design to limit the
CM current flow. Vehicle
It is important to note that depending on the current Generator or
Chassis
Transformer
paths and the frequency range of the CM leakage cur-
rent, there are different impacts. CM current that emits Onboard Electronics
to the grid and goes through the ground is considered
the CM EMI noise and regulated by noise spectrum lim-
RN Rsoil RG
its, typically starting from 150 kHz. The very same cur-
rent, below 150 kHz, causes potential electric shocks and
GFCI/RCD nuisance tripping. CM current that circulates
inside the vehicle could interfere with other onboard Figure 6. The TT grounding system.

Vehicle
Generator or
0.22 µF 1.5 kΩ Chassis
Transformer
1
Onboard Electronics
10 kΩ V bodyout
Protective
2 Earth
500 Ω 22 nF RN Rsoil RG

Figure 5. The human body impedance network (Zbody). Figure 7. The TN grounding system.

IEEE Elec
rized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 trific
UTC fromation
IEEE Magazine / J UNE 2apply.
Xplore. Restrictions 021 27
 LCM_AC2 LCM_AC1 L /3 VCM

IGND Leakage Current That Goes Through the

RN Substation Grounding Rod Resistance

A B

PE PE That Exists in TN Grounding But

RG Outlet to Local Ground Resistance
Zbody Human Body Impedance Network
ICM
ICM_AC Leakage Current that Goes Back

Ground and Comes Back to Grid

CYac2 CYac1
VCM Common Mode Voltage Source

2CYdc
Through ac Side Y Caps
ICM Total Leakage Current

IGND ICM_AC

Not in TT System
Figure 9. The CM equivalent circuit of a nonisolated integrated char-
ger connected to a TN grounding system.

LCM_AC2 LCM_AC1 L /3 VCM

Local Ground

RN
ICM
CYac2 CYac1
1
2CYdc
Zbody

Vbodyout
+

RG ICM_AC
Zbody

ITC IGND
VBat

2
LCM_DC

RG
ICM

Figure 10. The CM equivalent circuit of a nonisolated integrated

charger connected to a TT grounding system.
N
P

Cs /2 CYdc

Cs /2 CYdc
Y

case, the CM current loop will include both RG and RN and

the impedance of the soil (Rsoil). When someone is stand-
ing on the local ground and touching the vehicle chassis,
Nonisolated
(Integrated

Figure 8. The typical CM filter implementation and grounding connection in nonisolated chargers.

his or her body is in parallel with RG, and CM current will

VCM (fsw)
Charger)

flow through the person’s body.

The TN grounding system is widely adopted in China,
the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Ger-
many. As pictured in Figure 7, TN systems also have local
C
A
B

CYac1

grounding electrodes (RG and RN). However, a dedicated

L

protective earth (PE) conductor is connected between the

neutral point of the substation and the vehicle chassis.
Thus, the human body is always protected since most of
ICM_AC

the CM current will flow through the PE conductor. The TN

LCM_AC1

system is generally considered safer than the TT version.

However, PE conductors can be costly and need regular
PE Connected to Chassis

maintenance. As a result, TT systems are widely utilized

in TN-dominant countries. The IT grounding system is a
specialized floating architecture and beyond the context
LCM_AC2

CYac2

of this article.

CM Leakage Current Generation and

Equivalent Circuit Modeling
IGND

The typical CM filter and grounding implementation in

o

nonisolated chargers is given, in the three-phase configu-

Ground

ration, in Figure 8. As shown previously, the nonisolated

RN

Utility

charger can be modeled as one (or more) CM voltage

source (VCM) whose fundamental frequency is at its con-
trolled switching frequency ( fsw). The VCM is the main
source of CM noise in the system. Conducted EMI noise is
capacitively coupled through the switching cell’s parasitic

28 I E Elimited
rized licensed use E E l e cto:
t r iINDIAN
f i cati o nINSTITUTE
M agaz ineOF
/ JTECHNOLOGY
UN E 2021
DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 capacitances (Cs) to the vehicle chas-
sis ground. To limit the noise emis-
There are incentives and a two-stage LC filter designed for
an isolated charger on the grid side. It
sion to the grid, EMI filters (C Yac1, to pursuing is observed that a large CM current is
L CM_AC1 , C Yac2 , and L CM_AC2 ) are emitting to the grid (IGND), and an
installed on the ac side to meet the integrated chargers even larger CM current (ICM_AC) is cir-
grid side’s requirements.
If it is a nonisolated integrated
to simplify circuit culating in the vehicle chassis.

charger utilizing the traction drive structures, lower Potential Safety Concerns
inverter, there are also EMI filters (CYdc In nonisolated chargers, if the leakage
and LCM_DC) on the battery side. The costs, and achieve current is not properly managed, it
dc side filters are designed to bypass
and filter out the noise generated by
better efficiency and will lead to severe EMI with the grid
and the battery. It could also cause
the traction drive inverter and protect power density. nuisance tripping issues for the GFCI/
the battery. However, in this case, the RCD. With large CM currents going
dc side filter creates additional CM
coupling loops, as all Y capacitors are
connected to the vehicle chassis. The
Y capacitance (CYdc) used on the bat-
tery side for propulsion is usually 120
around 1 µF, which is much greater
100
than the nanofarad-level parasitic
coupling capacitances (Cs). Given the 100 80
fact that most nonisolated charging 60
50
ZAB (dB)

solutions are integrated chargers,

the CM equivalent circuit of a noniso- 40
0
lated integrated charger in TN and TT 20
grounding systems are shown in Fig- –50
0
ure 9 and Figure 10, respectively 1 pF
–100
(assuming that CYdc includes Cs). –20
1 pF
In the preceding equivalent circuit 1 nF
1 nF –40
modeling, a three-phase impedance CYac CYdc
1 µF 1 µF
balance is assumed. The total CM leak-
age current (ICM) has two paths to
return to its source: one goes through Figure 11. The ZAB(fsw) with varying CYac and CYdc with 10 kHz of switching frequency (CYac =
the ac side capacitors (ICM_AC), and the CYac1 = CYac2, LCM_AC1 = LCM_AC2 = 1.25 mH, and L = 360 μH).
other passes through the PE conduc-
tor or the earth ground (IGND). The CM voltage source
(V CM) is directly related to the dc bus voltage (V Bat), 700
switching frequency ( fsw), and modulation strategy. The ICM_AC
frequency spectrum of VCM(s) would be the fundamental IGND
600
component at the converter switching frequency ( fsw).
Between the ac and dc sides, to decide the capacitance
500
on which side has the dominating influence on the
Current (mA)

total loop impedance as shown in Figure 11, a para-

metric study of the total CM impedance, Z AB ( f sw ), 400
in a TN grounding system with varying CYac and CYdc at
10 kHz has been carried out. Generally, the bigger the 300
ZAB( fsw), the smaller the leakage current. In Figure 11, as
CYdc increases from 1 pF to 1 µF, ZAB( fsw) decreases sig- 200
nificantly, whereas decreasing CYac has little effect. It is
shown that CYdc has a dominating influence on the total 100
leakage current. 10 20 30 40 50
In a baseline nonisolated integrated charger setup, the Switching Frequency (kHz)
CM currents were tested by Zhang et al., in 2019, and the
results are presented in Figure 12. In the test setup, the Figure 12. The tested CM leakage currents with CM filters designed
implemented CM filters are the traction drive side filters for an isolated battery charger and a traction drive.

IEEE Elec
rized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 trific
UTC fromation
IEEE Magazine / J UNE 2apply.
Xplore. Restrictions 021 29
 The human body, like most sys-
tems, acts like a low-pass filter. The
–10 240
switching-related touch current
10 kHz, –29.5 dB
–30 120 contains mostly the switching fre-
quency-related component and its
–50 0
harmonics. The switching frequen-
40 kHz, –52.2 dB
–70 –120
cy component is of a lower fre-
Magnitude (dB)

quency and is dominating. As

Phase (°)
–90 –240 shown in Figure 5, the human body
impedance network demonstrates
–110 –360
low-pass characteristics, with a
–130 –480 cutoff frequency of 723.8 Hz. To
visualize the characteristics of the
–150 –600 human body impedance network,
the voltage gain from VCM to Vbody-
–170 –720°
1 KHz 10 KHz 100 KHz 1 MHz out, with baseline filter parameters
as defined in Figure 11, is provided
Frequency
in Figure 13.
Overall, the human body im­­
Figure 13. The transfer characteristics of Vbodyout(s)/VCM(s). pedance network gains more
attenuation of the CM voltage as
the frequency goes higher. This
through the vehicle chassis, other Nonisolated chargers
means that, in general, a higher
onboard circuitries might experience switching frequency could lower
interference as their grounds become are also known to
the risk of electric shocks to end
noisy. The most of dangerous of all is users. In practice, even with the
the potential risk of electric shocks to
have safety- and
human body’s low-pass nature, the
end users during normal operation. electromagneticCM leakage current could become
In the TN grounding system, end significant enough to cause shocks
users are always protected by the PE inference-related
if not properly managed. The high
conductor when making contact with leakage current and the touch cur-
the vehicle chassis. However, in the
challenges. rent were experimentally tested
TT system, the vehicle chassis is con- in Zhang et al., in 2019. In the touch
nected to a substation transformer current tests, the human body im­­
ground through various earth and grounding impedances. pedance network output exceeded the dangerous level
The human body impedance, represented by Z body in of 0.25 RMS volts at only a 200-V dc bus voltage and a
Figures 8 and 10, is in parallel with the user side ground- 10-kHz switching frequency.
ing impedance (RG). In this case, the converter switching-
related touch current, ITC, will flow through the human Potential Leakage Current Mitigation Techniques
body, as in Figure 10, and may result in electric shocks. Large leakage current poses electrical shock risks to end
users and reliability issues to onboard electronics. In non-
isolated charging systems, the CM current should be held
TABLE 3. A simulated total CM root mean
square current (ICM) with different pulsewidth to minimal levels so that users and onboard electronics
modulation (PWM) strategies in are protected during normal charging/discharging opera-
a three-phase converter. tions; the GFCI/RCD should also be free of nuisance trip-
ping issues so that safety protection is always available in
ICM With Fixed ICM With Sweeping case of a high-voltage grounding fault. The solutions to
PWM Carrier Frequency Carrier Frequency
Strategy (10 kHz) (9–11 kHz) CM problems target either the CM voltage source or the
noise propagation paths.
SPWM 1.85 A 2.59 A
DPWM1 4.13 A 2.19 A Alternative Modulation Strategies
There would be no CM leakage current if the battery char-
NSPWM 4.12 A 1.97 A
ger’s CM voltage remained constant. The common con-
AZPWM 2.89 A 2.68 A verter topologies used in electric vehicles typically cannot
be controlled to have a constant CM voltage. There have
S: sinusoidal; D: discontinuous; NS: near state; AZ: active zero.
also been many proposed alternative modulation

30 I E Elimited
rized licensed use E E l e cto:
t r iINDIAN
f i cati o nINSTITUTE
M agaz ineOF
/ JTECHNOLOGY
UN E 2021
DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 LCM_DC LCM_DC

Traction CYdc Traction CYdc

Driver Driver
Inverter + Inverter +
M Y M Y
Vdc Vdc

CYdc CYdc
Cstray VCM Cstray VCM

Cstray Cstray Cstray Cstray

Vehicle Chassis Vehicle Chassis

The low-impedance filter loop Stray inductance introduced by the disconnecting

bypasses the CM noise current. switch influences the bypassing capability.

(a) (b)

Figure 14. CM noise paths in the automotive propulsion system: (a) a traditional CM filter with a low-impedance bypassing loop and (b) a CM
­filter with a high bypassing loop impedance introduced by the add-on reconfiguration switch.

techniques for two-level converter topologies. However, Alternative Filter Topologies

none of the typical modulation techniques is designed If filter reconfiguration is not desired due to reliability and
to optimize the time domain CM currents. As a result, as traction drive EMI concerns, the onboard EMI filter topolo-
documented by Zhang et al. in 2019, and presented in gy needs to have enough filtering capability to redirect the
Table 3, these alternative pulsewidth modulation strate- CM current so that the vehicle chassis and the utility
gies do not deterministically reduce the RMS value of the ground would not see significant CM current (ICM and
leakage current. IGND). To achieve the design targets, the floating filter is
one of the po­­tentially effective topologies. As illustrated
Filter Reconfiguration in Figure 16, and with its equivalent circuit in Figure 17, a
Among the noise propagation loops, the battery side Y low-impedance inner loop is created with a floating
capacitors (CYdc) have been identified as a major coupling ground. The inner loop is in parallel with the outer loop
path. During charging mode, only the ac side CM filter is and should contain the majority of the high-frequency CM
necessary to confine the CM noise current within the current through impedance mismatch.
converter instead of letting it emit to the grid. Hence, the
dc side can be disconnected from the chassis during
charging by using a reconfiguration switch. However, the
100
add-on reconfiguration switch could lead to the degrada-
tion of the dc side EMI filter performance during propul- 80 Concerned Frequency
sion operation. Generally, the grounding impedance of Range
the dc side Y capacitors to the chassis needs to be mini- 60 150 kHz–30 MHz
Voltage Ratio (dB)

mized since the loop stray inductance could greatly com-

40
promise the performance of the CM filters, especially at
high frequencies. This is further illustrated in Figure 14, 20
where Figure 14(a) shows the CM filter loop with mini-
mum impedances in the bypassing loop and Figure 14(b) 0
gives the stray inductance in the bypassing loop.
–20
To visualize the effect of the additional stray induc-
tance in the Y capacitor grounding loop, in a typical trac- –40
tion drive EMI simulation model, the EMI spectrum with a
50-nH stray inductance is compared with the spectrum –60
104 106
without the add-on stray inductance in Figure 15. Grid Frequency (Hz)
side safety standards, such as International Electrotechni-
No Add-on Stray Inductance
cal Commission 61000-6-3, put regulations on the upper
50-nH Add-on Inductance
limits of the EMI noise spectrum from 150 kHz to 30 MHz.
By introducing a stray inductance of 50 nH to the CM filter
Figure 15. A motor drive dc side EMI spectrum comparison with no
grounding path, a significant increase in the dc side EMI additional grounding inductance and a 50-nH stray inductance intro-
noise spectrum is observed. duced by the reconfiguration switch.

IEEE Elec
rized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 trific
UTC fromation
IEEE Magazine / J UNE 2apply.
Xplore. Restrictions 021 31
 As seen in Figures 16 and 17, the add-on filter structure
is implemented with a CM inductor and two sets of
capacitors on the dc side (Cfdc) and the ac side (Cfac).
These components act like low-pass filters so that the

IGND Leakage Current That Goes Through

the Ground and Comes Back to Grid

PE PE That Exists in TN Grounding But

outer loop sees reduced, rather than full, CM voltage dis-

ICMO Total Outer Loop Leakage Current

RG Outlet to Local Ground Resistance

ICM_AC Leakage Current That Goes Back

RN Substation Grounding Resistance

ICM_inner CM Current Through the Floating
turbances. The ac side floating-filter capacitors (Cfac) can
VCM Common Mode Voltage Source

be integrated as part of the differential mode (DM) filter

for the input current, and the dc side capacitors (Cfdc) can
Through ac Side Y Caps be integrated as part of the dc link capacitor. The only
add-on component, the CM choke (Lf), limits the floating-

Not in TT System
filter loop current together with the grid-tie DM filter L.
The floating-filter structure achieves more current
Filter Loop

attenuation in the outer loop. Compared with conven-

tional solutions in which every filter stage is referred to
the common chassis ground, the separation in the
grounding assures minimal CM current through the
vehicle chassis and the earth ground, which means less
emission to the grid and less influence over other
onboard circuitries. Moreover, the design of the inner
+

loop is not regulated by the allowable CM filter capaci-

VBat
LCM_DC

Local Ground

tance in the safety standards. The use of Y safety class-

RG

rated capacitors, which typically have much higher

ICM_inner ICMO

voltage ratings than the DM dc bus voltage, are also not

N
P

necessary, making it more economical and possible to

CYdc

CYdc

use more aggressive filtering without large CM induc-

tors. The effectiveness of the floating-filter structure
Cfdc

Cfdc

was experimentally tested by Zhang et al. in 2019, and

the results are presented in Figure 18. Compared with
Nonisolated
(Integrated

Inner Loop With Floating Ground

the test results in Figure 12, a set of floating filters is

VCM (fsw)
Charger)

added, and the overall CM current amplitude (especially

IGND) has been significantly reduced.

Active CM Filtering
C
A
B

Vehicle Chassis Ground

Active EMI filters have proved to be a viable approach, as

L

Figure 16. The floating filter implementation in nonisolated integrated chargers.

shown by Wang et al. (2010). The two major active com-

pensation methods are active CM voltage and current
Cfac
Lf

injection. The voltage compensation injects counter-

acting CM voltages into the main circuit by using a
W

transformer, and the current compensation injects

V

counteracting CM currents through coupling capacitors

U

with a controlled current source. The former method

requires a transformer that can be very bulky due to the
ICM_AC

need for a small magnetizing current and a large boost

CYac1

ratio. The latter requires a high-voltage-rated buffer with

LCM_AC1

LCM_AC2 LCM_AC1 Lf L /3 VCM

D
LCM_AC2

Utility Ground
CYac2

3CYac2 ICMO
PE

3CYac1 3Cfac 2Cfdc

IGND

2CYdc
RN

IGND ICM_AC ICM_inner

G

Figure 17. The CM equivalent circuit of a nonisolated integrated

charger with floating filters.

32 I E Elimited
rized licensed use E E l e cto:
t r iINDIAN
f i cati o nINSTITUTE
M agaz ineOF
/ JTECHNOLOGY
UN E 2021
DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 N. Sakr, D. Sadarnac and A. Gascher, “A review of on-board
integrated chargers for electric vehicles,” in Proc. 16th European
200 Conf. Power Electron. Appl., 2014, pp. 1–10.
ICM_AC With Floating Filter M. A. Elshaer, A. Gale, and C. Chen, “Exploration of the
IGND With Floating Filter impact of high voltage ground fault in an electric vehicle con-
nected to earthing systems worldwide,” SAE Tech. Paper, vol.
150
2107, no. 1, Mar. 2017.
W. K. Thong and C. Pollock, “Low cost battery powered
Current (mA)

switched reluctance drives with integral battery charging

capability,” in Conf. Rec. 1999 IEEE Ind. Appl. Conf. 34th IAS Annu.
100
Meeting, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 60–64.S.
S. Haghbin, S. Lundmark, M. Alakula, and O. Carlson, “An
isolated high-power integrated charger in electrified-vehicle
applications,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 4115–
50
4126, Nov. 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVT.2011.2162258.
B. Briane, S. Loudot, O. Ploix, and A. Villeneuve, “Fast charg-
ing device for an electric vehicle,” U.S. Patent 0 286 740 A1, Nov.
15, 2012.
0
10 20 30 40 50 M. Bruell, P. Brockerhoff, F. Pfeilschifter, H. Feustel, and W.
Hackmann, “Bidirectional charge and traction system,” World
Switching Frequency (kHz)
Electric Vehicle J., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–12, June 2016. doi: 10.3390/
wevj8010237.
Figure 18. The tested CM leakage currents with filters, as evaluated Y. Zhang et al., “Leakage current mitigation of non-iso-
in Figure 12, and add-on floating filters for CM current management. lated integrated chargers for electric vehicles,” in Proc.
IEEE Energy Conversion Congr. Expo. (ECCE), Baltimore, MD,
2019, pp. 1195–1201. Sept. 2019. doi: 10.1109/ECCE.2019
.8913245.
a high current capability. Both methods need high-
Y. Abdullah et al., “A hybrid PWM modulation for EMI fil-
bandwidth control and sensing circuitry to successfully ter size reduction in a 10 kW GaN-based three phase invert-
attenuate CM currents. Compared with passive filters, er,” in Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo. (APEC),
there is significantly more circuitry and control com- Anaheim, CA, Mar. 2019, pp. 1897–1903. doi: 10.1109/APEC.
plexity involved, which raises reliability concerns. The 2019.8722047.
S. Wang, Y. Y. Maillet, F. Wang, D. Boroyevich, and R. Burgos,
hybrid active EMI filter was proposed by combining
“Investigation of hybrid EMI filters for common-mode EMI
active filters and conventional passive CM filters. The suppression in a motor drive system,” IEEE Trans. Power Elec-
active filters deal with the lower-frequency noise cur- tron., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1034–1045, Apr. 2010.
rents, and the passive filters handle the noise currents
of higher frequencies.
Biographies
Future Trends for Nonisolated Chargers Jin Wang ([email protected]) is with The Ohio State Uni-
Nonisolated electric vehicle chargers typically have a versity, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, USA.
simple circuit structure and could have higher efficiency Yue Zhang ([email protected]) is
and greater power density. However, compared to isolat- with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210,
ed solutions, nonisolated chargers are prone to a higher USA.
CM leakage current, adding difficulty to safety standard Mohamed Elshaer ([email protected]) is with Ford,
and code compliance. The leakage current issue and Dearborn, Michigan, 48126, USA.
safety concern remain the most critical challenges in William Perdikakis ([email protected]
the adoption of nonisolated chargers. But, in general, .edu) is with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,
nonisolated integrated charging will remain a very 43210, USA.
attractive option for future electric vehicles because of Chengcheng Yao ([email protected]) is
the potential to achieve charging, V2G, and V2H func- with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210,
tions at a lower cost, weight, and volume. Thus, more USA.
innovations are expected from both academia and Ke Zou ([email protected]) is with Ford, Dearborn, Michi-
industry to address these challenges. gan, 48126, USA.
Zhuxian Xu ([email protected]) is with Ford, Dearborn,
For Further Reading Michigan, 48126, USA.
M. Yilmaz and P. T. Krein, “Review of battery charger topolo- Chingchi Chen ([email protected]) is with Ford, Dear-
gies, charging power levels, and infrastructure for plug-in born, Michigan, 48126, USA.
electric and hybrid vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2151–2169, May 2013. doi: 10.1109/TPEL.

2012.2212917.

IEEE Elec
rized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI. Downloaded on September 29,2023 at 10:34:38 trific
UTC fromation
IEEE Magazine / J UNE 2apply.
Xplore. Restrictions 021 33