Professional Documents
Culture Documents
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
Adeeb Ahmed(1)
Iqbal Husain(1)
Yilmaz Sozer(2)
(1)
Department of ECE
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
AbstractThe paper presents the performance analysis
and comparison of two types of bidirectional DC-DC
converters - Cascaded Buck-Boost-Capacitor in the
middle (CBB-CIM) and Cascaded Buck-Boost-Inductor
in the middle (CBB-IIM) for use in plug-in electric and
hybrid electric vehicles. The comparison of the two
converters is based on device requirements, rating of
switches and components, control strategy and
performance. Each of the converter topologies has some
advantages over the other in certain aspects. Efficiency
analysis has been carried out for specific scenarios in
vehicle applications. The simulation and experimental
results are provided for both converter types.
Index
termsBidirectional, DC-DC converter,
Comparison, Electric vehicle, Cascaded Buck-Boost.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Mohamed Badawy(2)
(2)
Department of ECE
The University of Akron
Akron, Ohio, USA
control techniques but cannot provide bi-directional buckboost power flow capability. In [3], R. M. Schupbach
addressed the active and passive components stress issues
due to the wide input voltage range of hybrid electric vehicle
power management converters. Different non-isolated bidirectional DC-DC converters have been analyzed and
compared for PHEV charging applications in [4]. Three-level
bi-directional DC-DC converters have been found to be more
efficient than other converters. The output voltage is smoother
with these three level converters having three possible values
of the output voltage. These converters have low switch
voltage stress and smaller energy storage devices.
The comparison of two bi-directional buck-boost
converters analyzing the benefits and drawbacks of the
topologies for electric vehicle applications is presented in [5].
The comparison is based on system stability, and component
sizing and ratings. One of the converters is the Cascaded
Buck-Boost Inductor in the middle (CBB-IIM) converter
proposed in [6]; the converter topology is shown in Fig.1. The
other converter topology, shown in Fig.2, was introduced in
[7] and is called the Cascaded Buck-Boost Capacitor in the
middle (CBB-CIM) converter. This paper presents the
analysis of those two converters including experimental
evaluation of the converters with multiple input and multiple
output considerations.
II.
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
V2
C2
S2
S4
L2
= (
C2
C1
CM
V1
S2
V2
4 2
2 +
1
1
3 2
B=
)
3
2
2
2
2
2 2 + 2
0
0
2 (2 + )
0
0
(0)
0
L1
2
2
3 2
C = (0
2
2 +
2 + )
+2
1
2 +2 2
2 + )
) = ( ),
0
=0
Pole Pair1
-180
-200
-220
-240
-260
-280
100
2 2 + 2
150
200
Pole Pair 2
250
300
Input Voltage (V)
(a)
2 (2 + )
= ( ), 4 = 1 4
STABILITY ANALYSIS
+2
4
= (
S4
4 2
2 +2 2
, 2 = 1 2
S3
L1
( )
where 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , are the resistances of the passive
elements.
S3
C1
D=0
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
350
400
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
100
150
200
250
300
Input Voltage (V)
350
400
(b)
Fig. 3: Effect of input voltage change in system poles (a) Pole
trajectories of CBB-CIM (b) Pole trajectory of CBB-IIM.
-150
Pole Pair1
-200
-250
Pole Pair2
-300
-350
-400
10
15
20
25
30
35
Load Resistance ( )
40
45
50
(a)
-50
A. Switching Mechanism
Both the converters basically require only one switch to be
switched at a particular frequency to operate either as buck or
boost converter. The other switch is required to be in the ON
mode for the full switching period for current conduction [6].
An alternative strategy for switching both the switches with
different duty ratios and maintaining a particular intermediate
voltage for CBB-CIM appears in [7]; this strategy results in a
higher intermediate voltage across the central capacitor
which can be used as for a multi-output converter.
B. Switch Rating and Size
Stress on the switches is one of the major concerns when
going for final implementation of the converters. Equipment
size, weight and cost are largely dependent on the ratings of
the switches. Comparison tables including the component
ratings are given in this section. All the tables presented in this
section are based on single input, single output circuits shown
in Fig.1 and Fig.2.
Both the basic converters with single input single output
configuration comprise of four switches with freewheeling
diodes. For the CBB-IIM, peak voltage across any switch
depends on the operation mode as given in Table I. For CBBCIM, all the switches and diode experience the same voltage
stress which is equal to the voltage across the center capacitor.
Therefore, voltage across the center capacitor must be limited
up to the maximum voltage that the switches are designed to
withstand. Average currents through all switches and diodes
are given in Table II; these currents play a significant role in
the selection of the converter topology. Significant losses
occur during switching and switching losses increase if the
current is high. Thus, lower current and voltage across
switches are desirable. Table II shows that both of the
converters have essentially the same type of average current
through the switches if similar control methods are applied
(maintaining duty cycle at 100% for one of the switches in all
operating modes).
Table I. Peak Voltages for CBB-IIM
-100
-150
-200
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Load Resistance ( )
(b)
Fig. 4: Effect of output load power level in system poles (a) Pole
trajectories of CBB-CIM (b) Pole trajectory of CBB-IIM.
50
to
Buck
to
Boost
to
Buck
to
Boost
D1/ S1
V1
V1
D2/ S2
V1
V1
V1
V1
D3/ S3
V2
V2
D4/ S4
V2
V2
V2
V2
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
D3
V2 to V1
Buck
V2to V1
Boost
CB
BIIM
CBBCIM
CBBIIM
CBBCIM
CBBIIM
CBBCIM
CBBIIM
CBBCIM
P/V1
P/V1
P/V1
P/V2
P/V1
P/V1
P/V2
P/V2
D1
D2
V1 to V2
Boost
P/V
2
P/V
2
D4
P/V2
P/V1
S1
P/V
P/V1
P/V1
P/V1
S2
P/V1
P/V2
S3
P/V2
P/V2
P/V1
P/V2
S4
P/V1
P/V2
V1 to V2
Boost
1 24
V2 to V1
Buck
1 2(1 3 )
V2 to V1
Boost
1 2(1 2 )2 2
12 (1 1)
1
1
P/V1
P/V1
P/V2
P/V1
P/V1
P/V2
P/V2
P/V1
P/V2
V1 to V2
Boost
V2 to V1
Buck
(1 3 )
8 2 1
1
C1
(1 1 )
8 2 2
2
C2
V2 to V1
Boost
2
1
1
V12
22 2
2
D. Interleaving Capability
Interleaving technique can be applied to both converter
topologies to reduce the switching stresses and the voltage and
current ratings of the switches. Effective switching frequency
also increases with the introduction of interleaving which in
turn helps in reducing output voltage and inductor currents
ripples [11-13]. In both converters, there is the flexibility of
applying input side interleaving or output side interleaving or
both. The CBB-CIM can be used as a DC-to-AC converter by
adding one extra half-bridge leg, but for CBB-IIM an extra Hbridge converter is needed.
V1 to V2
Buck
CBB-CIM
L1
2 (1 1)
L2
2 2(1 3 )
2
2
Average Inductor
Current
CBBCBB-CIM
IIM
L
L1
L2
P/V1
S3
IL1
Vin
P/V2
S5
S1
P/V2
Vout1
L2
CM
L1
C1
IL2
Vout2
L3
IL3
S2
S6
S4
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
C3
C4
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
(a)
(b)
Fig.6: (a) Multi input case in CBB-CIM (b) 1 and 2 < (Boost
mode) and > (Buck mode)
S2
IL1
S3
IL2
S5
IL3
(b)
Fig.5: (a) Multi output case in CBB-CIM (b) < (Boost mode)
and >1 and 2 (Buck mode)
2 = 1
01
3 =
02
5 =
2 = 1
1
4 = 1
2
5 =
S1
S3
6 = 1
2
4 = 1
Vin
Vout2
S1
IL1
L1
S3
S5
C11
C12
C1
L2
IL2
S2
S4
S6
(a)
S4
S1
IL1
IL1
S6
S6
IL2
IL2
(b)
(c)
Fig.7: (a) Multi output case in CBB-IIM (b) Vin <Vout1 and Vout2 (Boost
mode) (c) Vin >Vout1 and Vout2 (Buck mode)
S5
Vin1
IL3
Vout
CM
Vin2
C1
L2
IL2
C4
C2
S2
S4
(a)
S2
IL1
S4
IL2
L3
S6
V.
SIMULATION RESULTS
S5
IL3
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
1001.30
4.80
4.53
54.78
937.19
93.60%
2052.20
20.06
11.5
70.39
1950.25
95.03%
4068.75
78.87
28.08
100.55
3861.25
94.90%
6048.10
174.01
48.15
130.57
5695.37
94.17%
8264.60
323.94
72.86
164.47
7703.33
93.21%
10364.85
508.71
98.89
196.87
9560.37
92.24%
Conduction
Loss(W)
Switching
Loss(W)
Pout(W)
1002.85
4.19
8.24
54.82
935.60
93.29%
2018.1
16.95
20.38
69.90
1910.86
94.69%
4081.15
69.33
51.17
100.89
3859.76
94.58%
6108.55
155.31
88.24
131.62
5733.38
93.86%
8311.1
287.51
133.33
165.44
7724.82
92.95%
10490.4
458.06
184.15
199.26
9648.93
91.98%
Pin(W)
95
280
260
240
1.5
1
0.5
0
130
120
110
1.5
1
0.5
0
20
0
-20
2.0001
2.0002
2.0003
2.0001
2.0002
2.0003
2.0001
2.0002
2.0003
2.0001
2.0002
2.0003
2.0001
2.0002
2.0003
2.0001
2.0002
2.0003
Time(sec)
CBB-CIM
CBB-IIM
94
93.5
93
Gate2
92.5
92
2
5
6
Load(kW)
10
IL1
Gate4
91.5
IL2
% Efficiency
1.5
1
0.5
0
Efficiency
95.5
94.5
Gate2
Efficiency
IL1
Pout(W)
Gate3
Switching
Loss(W)
IL2
Conduction
Loss(W)
Gate5
Inductor
DCR
Loss(W)
Pin(W)
IL3
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.2
20
1.2001
1.2001 1.2001
1.2002
1.2003
1.2003 1.2003
1.2004
1.2001
1.2001 1.2001
1.2002
1.2003
1.2003 1.2003
1.2004
1.2001
1.2001 1.2001
1.2002
1.2003
1.2003 1.2003
1.2004
1.2001
1.2001 1.2001
1.2002 1.2003
Time(sec)
1.2003 1.2003
1.2004
10
0
1.2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.2
90
80
70
1.2
Fig.10: Simulation results for CBB-CIM with multiple inputs (V2G mode).
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
IL2
Gate3
IL1
Gate1
IL3
Gate6
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.2
100
90
80
3.2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.2
20
10
0
3.2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.2
60
50
40
3.2
3.2001
3.2002
3.2003
3.2004
3.2001
3.2002
3.2003
3.2004
3.2001
3.2002
3.2003
3.2004
3.2001
3.2002
3.2003
3.2004
3.2001
3.2002
3.2003
3.2004
3.2001
3.2002
Time(sec)
3.2003
3.2004
Fig.11: Simulation results for CBB-CIM with multiple inputs (G2V mode).
Gate4
IL2
260
Gate6
0
3.5
280
240
3.5
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.5
20
IL3
3.5001
3.5002
3.5003
3.5004
3.5001
3.5002
3.5003
3.5004
Control Circuit
CBB-IIM
3.5001
3.5002
3.5003
3.5004
3.5001
3.5002
Time (sec)
3.5003
3.5004
15
10
3.5
VI.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
(a)
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
(b)
Fig. 14: Experimental results for CBB-CIM. (a) Results for steady state
(Ch1- intermediate stage voltage, Ch2- output voltage, Ch3- input
current, Ch4- output current). (b) Experimental result shows the initial
transient response of voltages and current (Ch1- intermediate stage
voltage, Ch2- output voltage).
% Efficiency
94.5
94
93.5
93
92.5
92
1.5
2.5
3
3.5
Load(kW)
4.5
5.5
% Efficiency
(b)
Fig. 15: Experimental results for CBB-IIM (a) Results for steady state
(Ch1- output voltage, Ch2- input voltage, (ChM=Ch3+Ch4)- charging
current at steady state) (b) Response while battery charging current
changes from 0A to 90 A and 90 A to 50 A(Ch1-output voltage, Ch2input voltage, Ch3-charging current).
94.5
94
93.5
93
1.5
2.5
3
Load(kW)
3.5
4.5
The performance analysis and comparison for two bidirectional DC-DC converters for EV/HEV applications are
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
rL1
iL2
+
vCM
CM
L2
rL2
Vin
S2
+
vC2 C2
_
S4
( + 2 +
2
2 +
) 2 +
2 (2 + )
1
=
2
2
1
=
2 (2 + ) 2 2 (2 + ) 2
=
=
1
1
2 (2 + )
( + 1 )1 +
1
2
( + 2 +
2
2
1
1
2 +
RL v
o
2
=
2 +
1
1
(2 + 1 ) 1 +
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
=
1
2
2
1
=
2
2 (2 + )
2 (2 + ) 2
2 (2 + )
3 2
1
2
1
3 2
1
=(
+ ) 1
2
2
1
=
2 (2 + ) 2 2 (2 + ) 2
S1
S3
rc2
+
vC2 C2
_
iL
Vin
rL
S2
+
RL vo
S4
1
1
( + 2 + 2
) +
2
2 + 2 2
2 (2 + ) 2
) 2
(2 + 1 ) 1 +
2
3 2
1
=
1 (3 + 2 + 2
)
2
2
2 + 2
3
2 2 (2 + ) 2
1
1
=
1 2
2
1
=
2 (2 + ) 2 2 (2 + ) 2
(2 +
Appendix B
State space modeling for CBB-IIM:
) 2 +
(2 + 1 ) 1
1
2
1
=
2
2 (2 + )
2 (2 + ) 2
1
1
= 1 1 +
1
1
+
rc2
S3
rCM
Using the same approach, the equations for the off condition
of 3 can be obtained as follows:
=
+
2
1
=
2 (2 + ) 2
1
2
= ( +
) +
+
2 + (2 + ) 2
2 (2 + )
1
2 (2 + )
4 2
1
4
= ( +
) +
2 +
2 +
(2 + )
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2388862, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
2 (2 + )
1
2 (2 + )
Using the same approach, the equations for the off condition
of 1 can be obtained as follows:
[8]
[9]
4 2
1
4
= ( +
) +
2 +
(2 + ) 2
2
2 (2 + )
1
2 (2 + )
4 2
1
4
1
= ( +
) +
2 +
2 +
(2 + )
2
2 (2 + )
1
2 (2 + )
2 .
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
A. Di Napoli, F. Crescimbini, S. Rodo, L. Solero, Multiple input DCDC power converter for fuel-cell powered hybrid vehicles, IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conference, vol.4, pp. 1685- 1690,
2002.
F. Caricchi, F. Crescimbini, F. G. Capponi, L. Solero, Study of bidirectional buck-boost converter topologies for application in electrical
vehicle motor drives, IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. and Expo.,
APEC '98, vol.1, pp.287-293, Feb 1998.
R. M. Schupbach, and J. C. Balda, Comparing DC-DC converters for
power management in hybrid electric vehicles, IEEE
International Electric Machines and Drives Conference, 2003.
IEMDC'03., vol.3, pp. 1369- 1374 vol.3, 1-4 June 2003.
D. Yu, Z. Xiaohu, B. Sanzhong, S. Lukic, A. Huang, "Review of nonisolated bi-directional DC-DC converters for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle charge station application at municipal parking decks," IEEE
Appl. Power Electron. Conf. and Expo., (APEC), 2010 , pp.1145-1151,
Feb. 2010.
Ahmed, A.; Khan, M.A.; Badawy, M.; Sozer, Y.; Husain, I.,
"Performance analysis of bi-directional DC-DC converters for electric
vehicles and charging infrastructure," Energy Conversion Congress
and Exposition (ECCE), 2013 IEEE , pp.1401-1408, 15-19 Sept. 2013.
S. Waffler, J. W. Kolar, A Novel Low-Loss Modulation Strategy for
High-Power Bidirectional Buck + Boost Converters, IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol.24, no.6, pp.1589-1599, June 2009.
M. A. Khan, I. Husain, Y. Sozer, A Bi-directional DC-DC Converter
with Overlapping Input and Output Voltage Ranges and Vehicle to
Grid Energy Transfer Capability, IEEE Journal of Emerging and
Selected Topics in Power Electronics, pp.1, Feb 2014.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.