Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A New Way To Model Current-Mode Control Part Two PDF
A New Way To Model Current-Mode Control Part Two PDF
I
n Part I of this article (Power Electronics Technology, May frequency, continuous-conduction-mode (CCM) opera-
2007), the basic operation of current-mode control tion. Reference [1] covers the theoretical background for
was broken down into its component parts, allowing this subject, providing an exhaustive analysis of the buck
a greater intuitive understanding for the practical de- regulator with its associated models and results. To prevent
signer. A comparison of the modulator gain was made duplication, the boost regulator of Fig. 1 forms the basis for
to voltage-mode operation, and a simple analogy showed the discussion here. A more rapid approach to using this
how the optimal slope-compensation requirement could be information is to bypass reference [1] and follow the general
obtained without any complicated equations. guidelines for slope compensation described in the first part
Now unified models using general gain parameters are of this article. Then the simplified equations can be used to
introduced, along with simplified design equations, and an determine the frequency response.
in-depth treatment of the analysis and theory is presented. A current-mode switching regulator is a sampled-data
This general modeling technique explains how previous system, the bandwidth of which is limited by the switching
models can complement each other on various aspects of frequency. Beyond half the switching frequency, the response
the current-mode-control theory. of the inductor current to a change in control voltage is
not accurately reproduced. To quantify this effect for linear
Modeling Continuous-Conduction Mode modeling, the continuous-time model of reference [2] suc-
This article provides models and solutions for fixed- cessfully placed the sampling-gain term in the closed-current
�� ����
�� �
����� ����
��� ��� ����
��� ��� ������
�����������
��
�� �
����� �� � ��
���������
�� �
�������
�
������ ������ ������
�� ������������ �����������
������� �������� ���������� ������������� ��������������� ��������
���������� ������������� ��������������� ��������
����
� ���������� ������������� ��������������� �����������
Fig. 1. This switching model of a boost regulator topology provides an example for modeling and simulating continuous-conduction-mode
operation.
Slope
Mode SE, SN mC, Q KM, K KE
compensation
Peak Fixed slope VSL SE 1 KE = 0
current SE = mC = 1 + KM =
VSL = SE × T T SN T V
mode (0.5 − D) × R I × + SL
L VAP
VAP × D′
D × RI 1
SN = Q= T
L π × (m C × D 5 K = 0.5 × R I × × D × D′
D′′ − 0.5) D
L
1 T
VAP × D × R I Q= K = −0.5 × R I × × D × D′
D
SN = π × (m C × D − 0.5)
5 L
L
VAP × R I 1 T
SN = Q= K = −0.5 × R I × × D × D′
D
L π × (m C − 0.5)
5 L
function, the effective sampled-gain inductor pole is given is Q = 0.5 (δ = 1). Using Q = 1 may make an incremental
by: difference for the buck, but is inconsequential for the boost
1
f L (Q) = × ( 1 + (4 × Q2 ) − 1) . and buck-boost with the associated right-half-plane zero of
4×T×Q ωR. For the peak-current-mode buck with a fixed slope-com-
This is the frequency at which a 45-degree phase shift pensating ramp, the effective sampled-gain inductor pole is
occurs because of the sampling gain. For Q = 0.637, fL(Q) only fixed in frequency with respect to changes in line voltage
occurs at 24% of the switching frequency. For Q = 1, fL(Q) when Q = 0.637. Proportional slope-compensation methods
occurs at 31% of the switching frequency. For second-order will achieve this for other operating modes.
systems, the condition of Q = 1 is normally associated with To determine the effect of reducing the slope compensa-
best transient response. The criteria for critical damping tion to increase the voltage-loop bandwidth, an emulated-
Linear Models
����
����� Simple, accurate and easy-to-use linear models have been
developed for the buck, boost and buck-boost converter
topologies. Each linear model has been verified using results
��
from its corresponding switching model. In this manner,
������ validation for any transfer function is possible, identifying
the accuracy limit of the given linear model. General gain
Fig. 3. The low-frequency linear model for this buck regulator was made
parameters are listed in Table 1. These parameters are inde-
using SIMetrix.
pendent of topology, and written in terms of the terminal
peak-current-mode buck with proportional slope-com- voltage (VAP) and duty cycle (D).
pensation switching circuit was implemented in SIMPLIS. The coefficients for the linear model of the buck regulator
A standard type-II 10 MHz error amplifier was used for shown in Fig. 3 are:
frequency compensation. With T/L = (5 µs/5 µH) and V V − VOUT
RI = (0.1 V/A), the best performance was achieved with VAP = VIN , D = OUT , D ′ =(1 − D)= IN ,
VIN VIN
Q = 0.637 for a crossover frequency of 40 kHz and 45-degree
V ×M K
phase margin. By setting Q = 1, a crossover frequency of M = D, IC = AP and FM = M .
50 kHz was achieved, again
PwrElec-Ventronics with1/4p
DigiPwr 45-degree phase margin
5/9/07 1:13 PMbutPage 1 R OUT VAP
reduced gain margin. This appears to be the practical limit The control-to-output simplified transfer function is:
s
NEW! Digi-Power
1+
v OUT R OUT ωZ
= × ,
vC R1 × K D s s
Multi-Charger 1 + ω × 1 + ω
P L
v IN RI × KD s s
�����
�����
1 + ω × 1 + ω
�
�
P L �� ��
��������
where ������ �
��� �����
R D2 1
× D′ K 1 R1
K D = 2 + OUT × + , KN = + , ��������
K M D ′
�
RI K M R OUT × D′
D2
������������� ������
× D′2
����
R ����
ω R = OUT and �� ����
L �������
������ ����
1 2 D′2 1 K
ωP = × + × + .
C out R OUT R I K M D ′
���
The coefficients for the linear model of the current-mode ������
buck-boost regulator shown in Fig. 5 are:
Fig. 4. The low-frequency linear model for this boost regulator was
VOUT VIN
VAP = VIN + VOUT , D = , D ′ = (1 − D) = , made using SIMetrix.
VIN + VOUT VIN + VOUT
D V ×M K ��� � �
M = , IC = AP and FM = M . ���� � ��
D′ R OUT VAP �
���� ���� �����
��� �
The control-to-output simplified transfer function is: ������ ��
���
��
�����
s s �
1− × 1 +
D ω R ω Z
v OUT R OUT × D′ ������ � ����� ����
= × ,
vC RI × KD s s �����������
��
������
1 + ω × 1 + ω
����
����
P L �� ���
������ ����
and the line-to-output simplified transfer function is:
s s
1+ × 1+
R OUT × D × D ′ × K N ω K ω Z
�������
v OUT ���
= × ,
v IN RI × KD s s ������
1 + ω × 1 + ω
P L Fig. 5. The low-frequency linear model for this buck-boost regulator
was made using SIMetrix.
where
D2 1
R OUT × D′ K the optimal Q at one input voltage. The control-to-output
KD = 1 + D + × + ,
RI K M D′ gain plots in Fig. 6 show only a slight deviation between
1 K RI × D R OUT × D
D′ 2 the two models at half the switching frequency, where fSW
KN = − + , ω R = OUT , = 200 kHz. For the simulation, slope compensation was set
K M D R OUT × D′
D 2
L×D
for Q = 0.637.
OUT × D ′ × K N
R OUT 2
The choice of simulation program is important, since not
ωK = and all SPICE programs calculate parameters with the same de-
L×K
gree of accuracy. For switching-model simulation, SIMPLIS
1 1 + D D′2 1 K
ωP = × + × + . is able to produce Bode plots directly from the switching
C OUTT R OOUT R I K M D ′ model. This program was used to produce the switching-
model simulation results. The low-frequency model was
Boost Regulator Simulation Example made with SIMetrix, which is the general-purpose simulator
For the peak-current-mode boost converter example, for the SIMetrix/SIMPLIS program. This simulator only
comparisons of results from the switching circuit of Fig. 1 handles Laplace equations for s in numerical form, where the
were made to the linear model of Fig. 4 using the sampling- numerator order must be equal to or less than the denomi-
gain term HP(s). To use the forward-path sampling-gain nator order. PSpice is much better suited for linear models
term, slope compensation was implemented with a fixed with Laplace functions in parameter form. It is more accurate
ramp. The results will be slightly different if a proportional than the SIMetrix/SIMPLIS program but cannot produce
ramp is used, as this modifies the modulator gain term KM Bode plots directly from the switching model. PSpice or a
and feed-forward term K. For an actual boost-converter program with similar capability may be used to obtain the
implementation with a fixed ramp, it is only possible to get simulation results for the linear model.
��������������� ������������
�� ��� �� ���
��������� ���������
�� ��� �� ���
������������������
���������������
���������������
������������������
� � � �
Fig. 6. This comparison of control-to-output transfer functions for a peak-current-mode boost converter using fixed-slope compensation
reveals the switching and linear models behave similarly, with a slight discrepancy at 100 kHz, which is half the switching frequency.
References
1. Sheehan, Robert, “Emulated Current Mode Control for
Buck Regulators Using Sample and Hold Technique,” Power
Electronics Technology Exhibition and Conference, PES02,
October 2006. An updated version of this paper, which
includes complete appendix material, is available from
National Semiconductor Corp.
2. Ridley, R.B., “A New, Continuous-Time Model for Current
Mode Control,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 271-280, 1991.
3. Tan, F.D. and Middlebrook, R.D., “A Unified Model for
Current-Programmed Converters,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Electronics, Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp. 397-408, 1995.