Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 26, NO. 3 MAY 1990 491
pole f,l is the same as that given by state-space ,“ ‘p
Vcp =PVac
i, =pi,
(3)
d2 v c p - d 2 vac
p = - -2LFs
- - - i, 2LFs i, ’ (SC)
vcp = L-.LPk (4)
d2Ts
From these equations the following relationships When the average model is used in the dc analysis of
between the average terminal voltages and currents PWM converters in DCM, the quantities in (8) are
can be deduced: replaced by their dc values, i.e., D,V,,, I,, etc.
The small-signal model is obtained from the
. d .
la = - relationship among the perturbation in average
d2
terminal quantities at a given dc operating point
Vac =
d2
-Vcp
(Ip,Vac,D). Hence, perturbation of (5) and (7) results
d in (after some algebra)
2LF,
d2 = -- -
i, 2LF, i,
(7)
d vcp d vac’ i, = O a C g + kid (9a)
498 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 24, NO. 3 MAY 1990
Fig. 6. Buck converter.
fig. 5. Smallsignal model of PWM switch in DCM. I'
where / i l T - a - - j - j +
- /r Vac R 1,'"
gi = -
la (9b) 'E -
V,C
2 Za
ki = -
D' (") Fig. 7. Buck converter to be anilyzed for dc characteristics in
DCM.
Perturbation of (6) and (7) results in
kd = k; + ko. (18b)
Next, we evaluate the small-signal parameters at the dc The above inequality is true because of two reasons.
operating point using (9) and (10) as follows: First, the switching time is much shorter than the
output filter time constant and second, D < M because
the conversion ratio in CCM ( D ) is less than the
conversion ratio in DCM for a given D. Hence, we
Likewise, for r we obtain after afew lines of algebra have
and assuming rLf is negligible in the dc analysis: 1-M
a1 2: RCf-
2-M'
1
r= =R(l- M). Using the inequality in (25), we can show that
gi +go + gf
a2
The control-to-output transfer function can be a1 >> -
obtained from Fig. 9 a1
so that the quadratic can be factored as
CO --
- 1 + S/SZI
a Hd 1 + als + a 2 s 2
where
where
210 rR
Hd = - 1 12-M
D r+R+rLf s1=-=-
RCl-M
2
sp2 = -
a2 =2Fs(g) .
It can be seen now that the dominant pole is given by
(27a) which is the same as the single pole given by
rc, + R state averaging [l].There is a second pole, however,
a2 = LCf
rL, + r + R' which satisfies the following general inequality:
Although at this point the control-to-output f - - >sp2- H ZFs
transfer function is completely determined, we should p2 - 2n n
perform some analytical simplifications in order to see which can be easily verified from (27b), as explained
if familiar results known from state-space averaging [l] earlier, by noting that the conversion ratio M in DCM
are present in (22). To d o so, we rewrite a1 assuming is always larger than the conversion ratio in CCM,
SO0 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 26, NO. 3 MAY 1990
.R
vs
c
Fig. 14. Cuk converter to be analyzed for line-to-output transfer
Fig. 13. Cuk converter to be analyzed for dc characteristics function. Null conditions for determination of zero due to filter
current is indicated.
where we have made use of the fact that Vac= Vg,
Ip = Vo/R. Also, when writing LlllL.2 we have used are also discussed in [4]. I will only discuss here the
the fact that the current through the active and passive determination of the zeros of (34) which correspond to
terminals is determined by the sum of the currents the nulls of the transform output voltage and transform
in L1 and L2. Substitution of (30) in (29) results in a filter current. The first null of the transform output
quadratic equation in M voltage is clearly given by the null of the impedance
across it. Hence, one of the nulls is simply given by the
zero due to the ESR of the output filter capacitor:
which gives
502 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 24, NO. 3 MAY 1990
Fig. 16. Predicted line-to-output transfer function of Cuk
converter in DCM using model of PWM switch in DCM.
Agreement with Fig. 15 is very good.
the form
where
transfer function in DCM' condition corresponding lo zero F,g, 19. predicted contro~~to~output
transfer function using model
due to filter current is shown.
of PWM switch in DCM. Agreement with Fig. 18 is very good.
L,=L2:lmH
R,,=HIZ~0.351~
\
'\ I-- right-half-plane zero in the control-to-output transfer
function of the boost and buck-boost converters in
CCM simply disappears in DCM. If we look at the
iOOm IUHZ
complex right-half-plane zero of the Cuk converter in
Fig. 18. Experimentally determined control-to-output transfer DCM given by (44),(45), we find that it has exactly the
function of Cuk converter in DCM as given in [2]. same dependence on the circuit parameters and M as
does the complex right-half-plane zero in CCM. The
where complex right-half-plane zero of the Cuk converter in
CCM is determined in [5] to be
1 - W , L*M~
Qa R
The quadratic in the numerator corresponds to Substitution of the conversion ratio M = D/D' in
complex right-half-plane zeroes (and not left-half-plane (46a) and (46b) yields the same results given in (45b)
zeros as believed in [2]). The experimentally and (45c). The same holds true for the right-half-plane
determined control-to-output transfer function as zeros of the boost and buck-boost converters.
reported in [2, Fig. (27)] is shown here in Fig. 18. The
predicted results obtained are shown in Fig. 19. Once
Boost Converter in DCM
again, the good agreement between the experimental
and predicted results confirms the validity of the switch The control-to-output transfer function of the boost
model and the fact that the Cuk converter in DCM converter in DCM can be shown to be given by
is still a fourth-order system. In particular, the reader
should pay close attention to the drooping phase past
the two sharp Q points. (Note: owing, to the high Q in
the numerator and the denominator, the phase in the
vicinity of wa and W O goes through a very sharp drop of where sZ1is the usual zero due to the output filter
360 degrees. This may cause the measuring instrument capacitor given in (36) and
to flip the measurement and maintain the reading R
between 180 and -180 degrees, giving the impression sz2 = -
M 2Lf
that the complex zeros are in the left-half-plane (as
was believed in [2]) as shown in Fig. 18. In order for ,y
2M-1
___-
1
the predicted phase response to look the same as the pl= M - 1 RCf
504 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 26, NO. 3 MAY 1990
CONCLUSIONS
s
p1 - RCf Proceedings, 1978.
[3] Voqkrian, V. (1990)
Simplified analysis of PWM using the model of the PWM
switch, Part I: continuous conduction mode.
IEEE Transactiom on Aerospace and Electronic System,
AES-26,2 (Mar. 1990).
[4] Vo@rian, V.
Circuitanented analysis of PWM converters using the
Again it can be easily seen that the right-half-plane model of the PWM switch.
Available from the author upon request.
zero has the same dependence on M and the circuit
parameters as the right-half-plane zero in CCM. The [SI Polivka, W., Chetty, P., and Middlebmk, R. (1980)
State-space average modelling of converters with parasitics
relative position of s22 to sp2 is given by and storage-time modulation.
In IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference
s22 = sP2(1 + 1/M) > 2Fs. (51) Proceedings, 1980.
Hence, as in the case of the boost converter, s,z occurs
after sp2.
VattchC VorpCrian received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering
from Northeastern University, Boston, MA, in 1976 and 1977, respectively. He
received his Ph.D. from Caltech, Pasadena, CA, in 1984.
In 1977, he joined the Digital Equipment Corporation in Maynard, MA,
where he worked for two years on the design of computer power supplies. In
1979, he joined the power electronics group at California Institute of Technology
at Pasadena, CA. Vorperian then joined the faculty of the Bradley Department
of Electrical Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
where he currently is an Assistant Professor. His current research interests include
modeling and an analysis of resonant converters.
Dr. Vorpkrian has published 11 papers and is a member of Sigma Xi.