Small-Signal Modeling and Analysis of the DoubleInput Buckboost Converter

Deepak Somayajula and Mehdi Ferdowsi

Missouri University of Science and Technology
Rolla, MO 65409 USA
http://power.mst.edu

Abstract Multi-input dc-dc power electronic converters

have been gaining popularity in applications such as renewable
energy sources and electric-drive vehicles due to their reduced
part count and flexibility in integration. In this paper, the
small-signal model of the double-input buckboost converter is
developed. The model is then used for a multiple loop feedback
design.
Considering a photovoltaic-battery hybrid power
system, the control objectives are threefold. These include
output voltage regulation, constant power demand from the PV
panel, and load accommodation by the battery pack. Two
feedback compensation networks are designed based on the
developed small-signal model. It is also demonstrated that the
two inputs of the double-input buckboost topology can be
controlled independently. This offers greater flexibility for the
compensator design. The results of the time domain analysis
are consistent with those of the theoretical model.
Index
TermsSmall-signal
converter, compensator design

modeling,

double-input

I. INTRODUCTION
Wind and solar energy generation is on the rise along with
other green energy sources. The intermittent nature of these
energy sources is the main drawback which has prevented
their complete integration into the mainstream energy
generation. Therefore, combining various energy sources
with each other to form a hybrid energy system is proposed
in the literature [1]. In general, a dc-dc converter is required
to integrate each energy related module into the system.
Integrating each energy source with a dc-dc converter is
expensive, bulky, less efficient, and hard to control. Instead,
using a single dc-dc isolated or non-isolated multi-input
converter is proposed [1-10]. Utilizing a single dc-dc multiinput converter to integrate all of the energy sources provides
several advantages including reduced component count,
potential reduction in weight, control simplicity, and
flexibility in the integration of sources [7].
Several non-isolated dc-dc double-input power electronic
converters (DIPEC) including double-input (DI) buck,
buckboost, and buck-buckboost converters have been
introduced, analyzed, and compared in the literature [7-12].
A comparative study between various dc-dc multi-input
topologies is made in [13] where the authors compare the
topologies based on the reliability, flexibility, cost, and

978-1-4244-4783-1/10/$25.00 2010 IEEE

modularity potential. Control aspects for specific DIPEC

topologies are discussed in [14-17] as it forms an integral
part of the development and widespread use of such
topologies. In [14], the control objective is to keep one of the
source currents constant along with the output voltage
regulation in a DI buck-buckboost topology. In [15], one of
the inputs of a DI buckboost converter is controlled using a
maximum power point tracking algorithm and the other input
is controlled through output voltage regulation while both of
them together meet the load demand. In [16], the control of a
DI buckboost converter is discussed when the control
objective is optimal power sharing such that during load
variations one of the sources, e.g., a battery, supplies constant
power and the second source, e.g., an ultra-capacitor, has to
meet the excess load demand. In these papers, the control
objectives were successfully achieved; however, what is
missing is a systematic controller design approach based on
small-signal models. Development of such models is crucial
for analyzing system stability and designing optimal
compensators.
In this paper, a small signal model for the DI buckboost
converter is developed in Section II. In Section III, the
transfer functions which are important to meet the control
objectives are developed. In Section IV, using the derived
transfer functions, it is analytically proved that the two
control loops which control the two inputs of a DI buckboost
converter can be independently controlled with two different
control objectives.
This feature of the loops being
independently controllable makes the compensator design
much simpler as the two compensators can now be
independently designed. Section V includes the simulation
results and analysis for the DI buckboost converter with the
compensators included in the system. The concluding
remarks are presented in Section VI.
II. SMALL SIGNAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DOUBLEINPUT BUCKBOOST CONVERTER
Power electronic converters are non-linear systems and
they have to be linearized by carrying out small signal
analysis. The feedback compensators can then be designed
based on the developed linear time invariant (LTI) models

2111

inorder to meet various control objectives. Small signal

analysis for single input dc-dc converters is very well
established in the literature [18, 19]. However, small signal
modeling for DIPEC topologies has not been reported yet.
Although, the control of DIPEC topologies has been reported
in the literture [14, 15], a systematic design procedure of
compensators based on LTI models has not been reported.
Thus, the development of small signal models for DIPEC
topologies is necessary in order to optimize the compensator
design and to provide a stable system which meets all the
control objectives. This being the intention, the small signal
modeling of the DI buckboost converter (shown in Fig. 1) is
carried out in this section. Various transfer functions that are
important in the control of the converter are obtained and
feedback loop compensator design is carried out. Similar
linearization techniques can be carried out for any DIPEC
topology to aid in the compensation design. In the DI
buckboost converter, the steady-state average equations
governing the dynamic response of the system are:
d i L (t ) T
(1)
L
= D1V1 + D 2V 2 (1 D 1 D 2 ) v o ( t ) T
dt
s

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the DI buckboost converter

I s 2 = D2 I L

(6)

Equations (5) and (6) in perturbed form give

i ( s ) = D i ( s ) + I d ( s )
s1

1 L

is 2 ( s ) = D 2 iL ( s ) + I L d 2 ( s )

(7)
(8)

Therefore, the small signal model shown in Fig. 2 is obtained

by considering (3), (4), (7), and (8).

d v o (t )

TS

v o (t )

TS

= (1 D1 D2 ) i L (t )

TS

dt
R
where D1 and D2 are the duty ratios of switches S1 and S2,
respectively. Equation (1) is obtained by averaging the
voltage across the inductor during one switching period.
Equation (2) is obtained by averaging the capacitor current
waveform. Perturbing and linearizing (1) and (2) around a
given operating point, neglecting the product of small signal
perturbed ac terms, and converting the obtained equations
into frequency domain using the Laplace Transformation
would give [19]:
sL iL ( s ) = D 1 v1 ( s ) + D 2 v 2 ( s ) + (V1 + V out ) d 1 ( s )
+ (V 2 + V out ) d 2 ( s ) (1 D 1 D 2 ) v o ( s )

sC v o ( s ) +

v o ( s )
= ( d 1 ( s ) + d 2 ( s )) I L
R
+ (1 D 1 D 2 ) iL ( s )

III. TRANSFER FUNCTIONS OF THE DOUBLE-INPUT

BUCKBOOST CONVERTER

(2)

(3)

(4)

It can be observed from Fig. 2 that the model has two

control inputs d 1 , d 2 and two disturbance inputs v 1 , v 2 and
all the other perturbations are dependent on these four inputs.
The two control inputs d 1 , d 2 can be controlled based on
various control objectives like maximum power point
tracking or optimal power sharing between the inputs. The
transfer functions required to meet the various control
objectives can be derived from the small signal model shown
in Fig. 2. For instance, to study the effects of the
perturbations in D1 on the output voltage, one should find
transfer function Gvd1(s) which is control-1 ( d 1 ) to output
transfer function. This transfer function can be obtained from
(7) and (8) by assuming the disturbance inputs v 1 = v 2 = 0
and also the control-2 d 2 = 0 resulting in

The process of obtaining (3) and (4) is very similar to the

process ascertained for single-input dc-dc converters and the
only difference for DI topologies is that in their case there are
two control inputs d 1 , d 2 and also two disturbance inputs
v 1 , v 2 . The small signal model shown in Fig. 2 is obtained
by replacing the terms in (3) and (4) with current sources,
voltage sources, current dependent sources, and voltage
dependent sources. The input side of the small signal model
which has the switch current perturbations can be obtained by
perturbing the steady state switch current equations. The
steady state average current equations for switch currents Is1
and Is2 are approximated by
I s1 = D1 I L and
(5)

(V1 + Vout )(1 D1 D2 ) sLIL

(9)
L
1
d2 =v1 =v2 =0
s 2 LC + s + (1 D1 D2 ) 2
R
This transfer function is a second order system with a
resonant pole pair and a right half plane (RHP) zero just like
a single-input buckboost converter where the RHP zero limits
the bandwidth of the system. If D2 is zero, then the transfer
function will be similar to the control-output transfer function
of the single input buckboost converter [19]. Controlling the
average inductor current for equal current sharing between
inputs of a parallel connected dc-dc converter is discussed in
[20]. However, if the objective is to maintain one of the
average switch currents constant, the control-2 to switch
current 2 transfer function is important in this context which
Gvd1 (s) =

2112

vo (s)
d (s)

iL

is1

v1

I L d1

D1iL

D1v1

is 2

v2

(1 D1 D2 )vo

I L d2

D2iL

io

(V1 + Vo )d1 (V2 + Vo )d2

(1 D1 D2 )iL

I L (d1 + d2 )

vo

D2 v2

Fig. 2. Small signal model of a double-input buckboost converter without offset time control

has been developed for single-input topologies in [21] and

similar analysis can be carried out for DIPEC topologies
using Fig. 2. Control-2 to switch current-2 transfer function
Gis2d2(s) for a DI buckboost converter is shown here in which
the control-2 to inductor current transfer function Gid2(s) can
be found from (3) and (4) by eliminating v o ( s ) and
settingthe control-1 d1 = 0 resulting in final value shown in
(10).
From (9) and (10) it can be observed that the transfer
function Gvd1(s) and Gis2d2(s) are important to maintain output
voltage regulation and to maintain one of the switch currents
constant and thereby supplying constant power from one of
the sources irrespective of the load demand.
Gis2d 2 (s) =

is 2 (s)
d (s)
2

= I L + D2
d1 =v1 =v2 =0

iL (s)
= I L + D2Gid 2 (s)
d (s)
2

1
(V2 + Vout )( + sC) + (1 D1 D2 )I L
is 2 (s)
R
= I L + D2
Gis2d 2 (s) =
L
d2 (s) d =v =v =0
s 2 LC + s + (1 D1 D2 )2
1 1 2
R

(10)

(11)

(s)
Ti ( s )
G
i ref 2 ( s )
d1 (s) +
is 2 ( s ) = is 2 d 1
1 + Ti ( s )
1 + Ti ( s )

(12)

v o ( s ) = G vd 1 ( s ) d 1 ( s ) + G vd 2 ( s ) d 2 ( s )

(13)

v o ( s ) = G vd 1 ( s ) d1 ( s ) + G vd 2 ( s )

In this section, it is shown that two control inputs d 1 and

d 2 can be independently controlled with each loop having a
different control objective. Inner current control loop Ti(s) is
shown in the Fig. 3 and it can be observed that average
switch current Is2 is being held constant through average
switch current control. Transfer function Gis2d2(s) responsible
for this has been developed in (10). However, perturbations
in is 2 ( s ) are also dependent on d 1 and this dependency is
given by transfer function Gis2d1(s) as shown in the Fig. 3 and
in (11). In order to reduce this dependency the perturbations
in d 1 are considered as disturbance signals for the inner loop
once inner current control loop Ti(s) is closed and this leads
to (12). Equation (13) shows the dependency of v o ( s ) on
the two control inputs and in (14) d 2 is replaced with

Gc2 (s)
is 2 (s)
VM

(14)

From (12) is 2 ( s ) can be substituted in (14) to obtain:

G (s)
v o ( s ) = G vd 1 ( s ) d 1 ( s ) + G vd 2 ( s ) c 2
VM

(15)
G is 2 d 1 ( s )

Ti ( s )

i ref 2 ( s )
d1 (s) +
1 + Ti ( s )
1 + Ti ( s )

When the average switch current Is2 is held constant then

iref 2 ( s) 0 and therefore (15) becomes

G (s) G
(s)
vo ( s ) = Gvd 1 ( s ) d1 ( s ) + Gvd 2 ( s ) c 2 is 2 d 1 d1 ( s )
VM 1 + Ti ( s )

(16)

vo ( s )
G ( s ) G is 2 d 1 ( s )

= G vd 1 ( s ) + G vd 2 ( s ) c 2

V M 1 + Ti ( s )
d (s)

(17)

G new ( s ) =

IV. INDEPENDENT CONTROL OF THE TWO LOOPS

corresponding perturbations in is 2 ( s ) from Fig. 3.

is 2 ( s ) = G is 2 d 1 ( s ) d 1 ( s ) + G is 2 d 2 ( s ) d 2 ( s )

From (9) and (17) it can be seen that transfer functions

Gvd1(s) and Gnew(s) are not exactly the same; however, it can
also be observed from Figs. 5 and 6 that the gain and phase
of the two transfer functions are very close over a wide
frequency range for a given operating point. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the two loops can be independently
controlled as shown in Fig. 4 and compensator design for
Gc1(s) and Gc2(s) for the two loops can also be carried out
independently. The operating point around which the DI
buckboost converter is linearized and the magnitude and the
phase plot are drawn is described in the section V.
V. TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION RESULTS FOR THE CLOSEDLOOP RESPONSE
Closed-loop response of the system can be obtained when
both the inner current control loop Ti(s) and outer voltage

2113

v ref

d1

iref2

1
VM

Gc2 (s)

Gis2d1 (s)

d2

iref 2

is2

Gis2d 2 (s)

1
VM

Gc1(s)

Gc2 (s)

1
VM

d1

d 2

is2

Gis2d 2 (s)
Ti

Ti

Tv

Fig. 3. Block diagram of the converter system with the inner current loop
closed

Fig. 4. Small-signal control loop of the DI buckboost converter where Is2 and
Vout are constant and the loops are independently controlled
90

80
G vd1_measured

A_Gvd1_measured

60

n,0

20 log ( G vd1 ( j )

vo

Gvd1(s)

40

A_Gvd1 ( )

20 log ( T i ( j )

20
)
20 log ( T v ( j ) )
0
20 log ( G new ( j ) )
20

A_Ti ( )

0
90
180

A_Tv ( )
A_Gnew ( )

40
10

n,0

1 10

100

f measured

1 10
,

1 10

360
10

100

n , 0 2

1 +
2 * 575 . 311

1 +
10 * 7356

110

110
f measured

Fig. 5. Magnitude plot for the functions Gvd1(s), Gnew(s), Ti(s) and Tv(s) and
measured Gvd1(s) indicated by dotted line

1+
30

2
*
575
. 311
G c1 ( s ) =
s
s
+
1

10 * 7356

270

110
,

1 10

1 10

n , 0 2

Fig. 6. Phase plot for the functions Gvd1(s), Gnew(s), Ti(s) and Tv(s) and phase
measured Gvd1(s) indicated by dotted line

control loop Tv(s) are closed. A stable current compensator

Gc2(s) is designed initially and then the voltage compensator
Gc1(s) is designed based on design methodology proposed in
[22, 23]. The values for the compensators Gc1(s) and Gc2(s)
along with the magnitude plots and the phase plots for the
various transfer functions are shown in Figs. 5 and 6,
respectively. Gvd1(s) and Gnew(s) plots are obtained by
linearizing the DI buckboost converter around the following
operating point, V1=40 V, V2=70 V, D1=0.2, D2=0.4,
Vo=90 V, Iref2=9 A, and R=10 . The plots for Ti(s) and Tv(s)
are also obtained around the same operating point by using
the compensators shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The
magnitude and phase of Gvd1(s) are measured and the plot is
also shown in Figs. 5 and 6 with a dotted line and it can be
seen that the measured function closely follows the actual
function Gvd1(s). Using the compensators, a time domain
simulation of the system is carried out around the same
operating point and the load is varied from 10 to 5 in
order to test the stability and effectiveness of the system in
meeting its control objectives. The results of the time
domain simulation are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. It can be seen
that during the step change in the load, output voltage Vout

C 2

(s) =

400
s

1 +
6 * 575 . 311

1 +
6 * 7356

remains relatively constant at 90 V, average switch current Is2

also remains relatively constant at 9 A, and the additional
power requirements are met by Source 1 through changes in
Is1. This indicates that the required control objectives are
effectively met through the independent control of the two
control loops.
VI. CONCLUSION
A small-signal model for the DI buckboost converter was
developed and the compensator design is carried out for the
system. Two compensators are designed to meet the control
objective of supplying constant power from one source (PV)
and meeting the additional load demand through the other
source (battery) during load variations. It is shown that the
control objective can be achieved by the ndependent control
of the two loops controlling the two switches. This
independent control of the two loops simplifies the
compensator design procedure. Therefore, the two loops are
designed independently one to maintain output voltage
regulation and another to maintain switch current from source
2 constant. The closed loop system is tested for load

2114

regulation using the designed compensators. The system is

stable and has a good dynamic response. The developed
models and the analysis can be used for the integration of
renewable energy sources using DIPEC topologies.
30
25

Is1 (A)

20
15
10
5
0

0.015

Time (s)

0.02

0.025

15
14

Is2 (A)

13
12
11
10
9
8

0.015

0.02
0.025
Time (s)
Fig. 7. Average current waveforms for both sources for a step change in
the load from 10 to 5 at t=0.015 s with both control loops closed.
100

Vout (V)

90

80

70

60

0.015

Time (s)

0.02

0.025

Fig. 8. Output Voltage waveform for a step change in the load from 10 to
5 at t=0.015 s with the current and voltage loops closed.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

Y. M. Chen, Y. C. Liu, and F. Y. Wu, Multi-input converter with

power factor correction, maximum power point tracking, and ripplefree input currents, IEEE Trans. Power Electronics, vol. 19, pp. 631639, May 2004..
A. D. Napoli, F. Crescimbini, S. Rodo, and L. Solero, Multiple input
dc-dc power converter for fuel-cell powered hybrid vehicles, in Proc.
IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conf. (PESC), Jun. 2002, vol. 4,
pp. 16851690.
H. Li, Z. Du, K. Wang, L. M. Tolbert, and D. Liu, A hybrid energy
system using cascaded H-bridge converter, in Proc. IEEE Industrial

Applications Conf., vol. 1, Oct. 2006, pp.198-203.

R. M. Schupbach, J. C. Balda, M. Zolot, and B. Kramer, Design
methodology of a combined battery-ultracapacitor energy storage unit
for vehicle power management, in Proc. IEEE Power Electronics
Conf., 15-19 Jun. 2003, vol. 1, pp. 88-93.
[5] H. Tao, A. Kotsopoulos, J. L. Duarte, and M. A. M. Hendrix, Family
of multiport bidirectional dc-dc converters, in Proc. IEEE Electric
Power Applications, vol. 153, May 2006, pp. 451 - 458.
[6] H. Tao, A. Kotsopoulos, J. L. Duarte, and M. A. M. Hendrix, Triplehalf-bridge bidirectional converter controlled by phase shift and
PWM, in Proc. IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conf. and
Exposition (APEC), Dallas, TX, USA, Mar. 2006,.pp. 1256-1262.
[7] K. P. Yalamanchili, M. Ferdowsi, and K. Corzine, New double input
dc-dc converter for automotive applications, in Proc. IEEE Vehicle
Power and Propulsion Conf., 6-8 Sept. 2006, pp 1-6.
[8] K. P. Yalamanchili and M. Ferdowsi, Review of multiple input DCDC converters for electric and hybrid vehicles, in Proc. IEEE Vehicle
Power and Propulsion Conf., 7-9 Sept. 2005, pp. 160-163.
[9] K. Gummi and M. Ferdowsi, Synthesis of double-input dc-dc
converters using single pole triple throw switch as a building block, in
Proc. IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conf. (PESC), Greece, Jun.
2008.
[10] K. Gummi and M. Ferdowsi, Derivation of new double-input
converters using H-Bridge cells as Building Blocks, to appear in
Proc. IEEE Industrial Electronics Conf., Orlando, FL, USA, November
2008.
[11] A. Khaligh, J. Ciao and Y. J. Lee, A Multiple-input dc-dc converter
topology, IEEE Power Electronic Letters, vol. 24, pp. 862-868, Mar
2009.
[12] B. G. Dobbs and P. L. Chapman, A multiple-input dc-dc converter
topology, IEEE Power Electronics Letters, vol. 1, pp. 6-9, Mar. 2003.
[13] S. H. Choung and A. Kwasinki, Multi-input dc-dc converter
topologies comparison, in Proc. IEEE Industrial Electronics Conf.
(IECON), Nov. 2008, pp. 2359-2364.
[14] Y. M. Chen, Y. C. Liu, and S. H. Lin, Double-input PWM dc/dc
converter for high/low-voltage sources, IEEE Trans. Industrial
Electronics, vol. 53, pp. 1538-1545, Oct. 2006.
[15] N. D. Benavides and P. L. Chapman, Power budgeting of a multipleinput buck-boost converter, IEEE Trans. Power Electronics, vol. 20,
pp. 1303-1309, Nov. 2005.
[16] D. Somayajula and M. Ferdowsi, Power sharing in a double-input
buckboost converter using offset time control, in Proc. IEEE Applied
Power Electronics Conf. (APEC), Feb. 2009, pp. 1091-1096.
[17] Y. M. Chen, Y. C. Liu, S. C. Hung, and C. S. Cheng, Multi-input
inverter for grid-connected hybrid pv/wind power system, in Proc.
IEEE Trans. Power Electronics, vol. 22, pp. 1070-1077, May 2007.
[18] J. G. Kassakian, M. F. Schlecht, and G. C. Verghese, Principles of
Power Electronics, 2nd ed, Addison Wesley, 1991.
[19] R. W. Erickson and D. Maksimovic, Fundamentals of Power
Electronics, 2nd ed. Norwell, M. A. Kluwer, 2001.
[20] R. Ayyanarr, R. Giri, and N. Mohan, Active input-voltage andloadcurrent sharing on input-series and output-parallel connected modular
dc-dc converters using dynamic input-voltage reference scheme, IEEE
Trans. Power Electronics, vol. 19, pp.1462-1473, Nov 2004.
[21] W. Tang, F. C. Lee, R. B. Ridley and I. Cohen Charge Control:
Modeling, Analysis, and Design, IEEE Transaction on Power
Electronics, vol. 8, Oct. 1993, pp.396-403.
[22] S. Angkititrakul, H. Hu and Z. Liang, Active inductor current
balancing for interleaving multi-phase buck-boost converter, in Proc.
IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conf. (APEC), Feb. 2009, pp. 527532.
[23]http://dataweek.co.za/news.aspx?pklNewsId=31635&pklCategoryID=46
accessed on July 11, 2009.
[4]

2115