Buck-Boost PWM Converters Having

Two Independently Controlled Switches

Jingquan Chen, Dragan MaksimoviC and Robert Erickson

Colorado Power Electronics Center

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, CO 80309-0425. USA

Abstract - Single-switchstep-uplstep-down converters, such In Section 11, we begin with an introduction of how the
as the buck-boost, SEPIC and Cuk, have relatively high power transfer mechanisms in switching converters affect the
voltage and current stresses on components compared to the component stresses. The converter synthesis method
buck or the boost converter. A buck-boost converter with described in [l] is adopted to derive all possible two-switch
two independently controlled switches can work as a boost or buck-boost topologies that are capable of achieving minimum
as a buck converter depending on input-output conditions, indirect power. The synthesis method is briefly reviewed in
and thus achieves lower stresses on components. Using the Section 111. Families of two-switch buck-boost converters are
converter synthesis method from 111, families of two-switch presented in Section IV. Selected topologies are compared
buck-boost converters are generated, including several new against the boost converter and the buck-boost converter in
converter topologies. The two-switch buck-boost converters Section V, and new converters that outperform previously
are evaluated and compared in terms of component stresses
known topologies are highlighted.
in universal-input power-factor-corrector applications.
Among them, one new two-switch converter is identified that
has low inductor conduction losses (50% of the boost 11. POWER TRANSFER MECHANISMS IN
converter), low inductor volt-seconds (72% of the boost SWITCHING CONVERTERS
converter), and about the same switch conduction losses and
voltage stresses as the boost converter. In the boost and buck converters, there are two
mechanisms that cause transfer of power from the converter
I. INTRODUCTION input to the load, and hence the dc output power P is
composed of two components [ 5 ] . A part of the power,
Dc-dc converters with step-up/step-down characteristic are Pindirec,,is processed by the switching devices using the
required in all applications where the input and the output
voltage ranges overlap. For example, in power factor
correction (PFC) applications, the use of step-up/step-down
converters such as the buck-boost, SEPIC or Cuk, allows one
to set the output dc voltage to an arbitrary intermediate value.
For one given dc operating point, it is well known that the
buck (if the input is greater than the output), or the boost
converter (if the input is lower than the output) perform Energy Storage
I ElenleNs I
conversion with lower component stresses and energy storage L---------------
U I
requirements than the single-switch step-up/step-down
converters.
(b) r--------------- I
I Single-switchBuck- I
Paralleling [2] and multilevel techniques [3][4] can be used I Boost Converter I
to share current or voltage stresses at the expense of more
switching components. However, neither of these approaches
aims at reducing the current and voltage stresses at the same
time. In this paper we show how converters with buck-boost
Input #FiT,f$ Load

Pmdvrcl Pzndmo 1
characteristic can be constructed using two active switches to I I
achieve low component stresses, low energy storage I I
I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - I
requirements, and therefore size and efficiency performance
comparable to the performance of the simple buck or boost Fig. 1Energy flow chart (a) boost and buck converter; (b) single-switch
converters. buck-boost converter.

This work is supported by Philips Research, Briarcliff Manor, NY, through Colorado Power Electronics Center

0-7803-7067-8/01/$10.00 02001 IEEE 736

 single-wltch buck-boost, flyback, Cuk or SEPIC

lo! 0.5
V

1 1.5 2 2.5

1 I
1

Fig. 3 Cascaded two-switch buck-boost topologies: (a) boost-buck-

0.8 cascaded, (b) buck-boost-cascaded.

0.6

0.4

0.2

I
0
0 0.5 I I .5 2 2.5 3
"'v".. .\
Fig. 2 (a) Relative indirect power for dc-to-dc converters; (b) minimum
relative indirect power for low harmonic rectifiers.

inductor for intermediate energy storage. The remainder of

the input power, Pdjrecf,flows directly to the output, bypassing Fig. 4 Ac (left) and dc circuits (a) boost cell, (b) buck cell
the intermediate process. Fig. l(a) illustrates the energy flow
output dc voltage. From the discussion above, it follows that
process in the boost and buck converters. The ability of
voltage and current stresses can be reduced provided that
providing direct energy path leads to lower component
there is a direct path for energy delivery. It is
stresses, lower energy storage and higher efficiency. In
therefore of practical interest to find buck-boost
single-switch step-uplstep-downconverters, such as the buck-
configurations that process minimum indirect power and have
boost, SEPIC and Cuk, the direct power is equal to zero. All
reduced component stresses.
of the input power is processed by the switching devices, as
Two simple examples of cascade connection of the buck
illustrated in Fig. l(b). As a result, component stresses and
and the boost converter in Fig. 3 have the ability to provide
energy storage requirements are higher. Figure 2(a) illustrates
direct energy path and have a widely adjustable output
the relative indirect power Pin~irecJP for the dc-to-dc buck,
voltage. In both cases, if the transistors are driven by the
boost and single-switch step-up/step-down converters, as a
same control signal, there is no direct energy path. To
function of Vj,,/Vo.
approach the minimum indirect power process, the transistors
In universal-input (85Vm,-264V,,) power-factor-
must be independently and optimally controlled. When the
correction (PFC) applications, the boost converter is usually
instantaneous input voltage is less than the dc output voltage,
preferred because of its simplicity, relatively low component
the transistor of the boost converter operates with PWM,
stresses and relatively high efficiency. However, an output
while the transistor of the buck converter is always on. When
voltage higher than the peak input voltage must be chosen to
the instantaneous input voltage is greater that the dc output
satisfy the functional limit of the boost converter. Single-
voltage, the buck converter is PWM controlled and the boost
switch step-uplstep-down converters can be used in
transistor is always off. This can lead to a converter system
applications that require an intermediate output voltage level,
with capability of intermediate output voltage and with the
but since the direct power is equal to zero, component
theoretically minimum indirect power characteristic shown in
stresses and energy storage requirements are higher. For a
Fig. 2(b).
converter in the PFC application, the theoretical minimum
indirect power is shown in Fig. 2(b) as a function of the Although the circuits of Fig. 3 can approach the theoretical
lower limit of indirect power and have lower semiconductor
V,lV,, where V , is the peak ac line input voltage and V, is the
voltage stresses, the converter in Fig. 3(b) exhibits increased

737
Fig. 5 Ac circuits for two-switch buck-boost converters: (a) cascaded
connection and interleaved connection, (b) superimposed
connection, (c) superimposed connection topologies with reduced
number of switches.

Fig. 8 two
inductors.

Fig. 9
Fig. 6 Dc circuits for two-switch buck-boost converters: (a) buck
cascaded by boost, (b) boost cascaded by buck, (c) buck
interleaved by boost, (d) boost interleaved by buck, (e) buck
boost superimposed, (f) reduced order of buck boost
superimposed.

JE I 0,

Fig. 10

(a)

(b)
m
U

1Y1
1 ii 4

c,
I\ 77%f: R.
Vg(]
Fig. 7 Other buck-cascaded-by-boost (BuCBB) converters with two
inductors.
JE a, L1

Fig. 1

738
conduction loss at low ac line input because of the additional
conduction loss of the buck transistor. It is desired to find out
other two-switch buck-boost converter topologies and
compare their performances in terms of component
conduction losses and stresses.
111. SYNTHESIS OF PWM DC-TO-DC
CONVERTERS
The synthesis method introduced in [l] is based on the
equivalent circuits of a PWM dc-to-dc converter at ac and dc,
which are, in the limit, valid for switching frequency
components and dc components, respectively. In ac
equivalent circuits, the voltage sources and filter capacitors
are shorted, while the current sources and filter inductors are
removed. In dc equivalent circuits, the filter capacitors are
removed and the filter inductors are shorted. Therefore, only
the switches remain in both equivalent circuits of a PWM dc-
to-dc converter. For example, Fig. 4 represents the ac and dc
circuits of simple boost and buck converters. Compared to
earlier synthesis methods [6][7], instead of dealing with the
large number of possible connections of switches, reactive
elements, supplies and loads, this method considers possible
ac and dc circuits having only switch elements. Furthermore,
there are formulation rules of ac circuits and topological
connections between ac and dc circuits that can quickly
narrow down the scope. Also, a method of inserting the
minimum number of inductors and capacitors to realize
complete PWM converters from respective ac and dc circuits
is described in [I].
IV. DERIVATION OF TWO-SWITCH BUCK-BOOST
TOPOLOGIES
The two-switch converters investigated in this paper can
work functionally as either a boost or a buck converter
depending on the input/output conditions. Such converters
can therefore be considered connections of the buck and the
boost converter. For example, the converters in Fig. 3 are
cascade connections of the buck and the boost converter.
Their equivalent dc circuits, shown in Fig. 6(a),(b)
respectively, are cascade connections of those of the buck and
the boost cells of Fig. 4. Their ac circuits, shown in Fig. 5(a),
are those of the boost and the buck cells connected at a single
node.
Following the considerations above, new buck-boost
converters that meet the minimum indirect power objective
can be found by identifying other possible connections of the
boost and the buck cells, together with the appropriate control
schemes. In addition to the cascade connections, we have
found that interleaved and superimposed connections lead to
several new two-switch buck-boost converters. Cascaded,
interleaved and superimposed classes of two-switch buck-
739
boost converters are summarized in this section. Their ac and
dc circuits are presented in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 respectively.
A. Cascaded connection
In addition to the converters shown in Fig. 3, there are two
other configurations shown in Fig. 7 and 8 respectively,
having the same equivalent ac and dc circuits, and two
inductors. For converters of these two families, the following
control sequence is applied to achieve the minimum indirect
power delivery: (1) when the input voltage is smaller than the
output voltage, PWM control applies to the boost cell, while
the transistor (SZ,)of the buck cell is always on. The
converter works as a boost converter: (2) when the input
voltage is greater than the output voltage, PWM control
applies to the buck cell, while the diode (SIz)of the boost cell
is always on. The converter works as a buck converter. All
these converters share the same overall conversion ratio:
M = - 1-d2 (1)
dl
where dl and d2 are the duty ratio of the boost and the buck
cell, respectively.
B. Interleaved connection
Two families of topologies are derived from interleaved
connection. In the dc circuits of this class, shown in Fig.
6(c),(d), the buck (boost) cell is separated from the boost
(buck) cell, and would regain its functionality provided that
one of the boost (buck) switches is closed. The interleaved
topologies have the same ac circuits as the cascaded
topologies and thus have the same control sequence applied
to achieve the minimum indirect power. The family of
converters in which the boost cell is separated is named Boost
Interleaved Buck-Boost converter (BoIBB), and has the
following overall conversion ratio:
M =d2 +- dl
(2)
1 - dl
There is only one BoIBB with two inductors. The
converter is shown in Fig. 9.
The family of converters where the buck cell is separated is
named BuIBB, and has following overall conversion ratio:
1
M= (3)
(4+-I dl
1-dl
There is only one BuIBB with two inductors. It is shown in
Fig. 10.
C . Superimposed connection
Fig. 5(b) shows another possible ac circuit and the control
sequence that meet the requirement of minimum indirect
power delivery. In each subinterval, there is one and only one
switch conducting. The duty ratios obey:
d , , + d I 2+ d , , +d,, = 1 (4)
 TABLE I
THE FUNCTIONALITY OF INDUCTORS IN TWO-SWITCH BUCK-
tBoSBB. BulBB and
BOOST CONVERTERS BuCBB
-4-SwkSwitch Bud-
Barst
I I LI (L) I L?
I Boost I Buck I Boost I Buck
Mode Mode Mode Mode
BuCBB Boost Buck Boost Buck
Cascaded BoCBB Boost Filter Filter Buck
Interleaved
BoIBB Boost Filter Boost Buck
BuSBB and Boost
Superposed Buck Boost Buck
BoSBB
Fig. 13 Worst-case inductor conduction losses compared to the boost
where d l l , d12, d2], and d22 are the duty ratio of SI1,SI2,S2]
and S22 switch, respectively. Fig. 6(e) is the equivalent dc
circuit that can be identified as superimposed connection of A . Inductors
the buck and the boost cells. Notice that in both ac and dc Two items are considered here: (1) volt-seconds applied
circuits, S12 and S?1 are in parallel. One of these switches is during a switching period and (2) rms current. These are the
redundant. Fig. 5(c) and Fig. 6(f) show the ac and dc circuits main factors that determine the inductor size.
obtained by removing this redundant switch. The control An inductor in a two-switch buck-boost converter can play
scheme then becomes: one of three possible roles: (1) as the input inductor of the
boost cell, (2) as the output inductor of the buck cell, (3) as
d , + d 2 + d 3 =1 (5)
an inactive low-frequency filter. Table I shows the
with d l to d3 representing duty ratio of the switches SI to S3 in functionality that the inductors take in two parts of the ac line
Fig. 5(c) and Fig. 6(f). The switch S2 is playing the role of SI2 input: boost mode, when the input voltage is lower than the
when the boost cell is active, and S21 when PWM control is output, and buck mode, when the input voltage is higher than
applied to the buck cell. The overall conversion ratio is: the output. It is interesting to note that L1 in all topologies
M = -dl + d2 works as the “boost” inductor in the boost mode, and L2 as a
(6)
d2 + d 3 “buck” inductor in the buck mode. Their roles in the other
The results from the realization procedure are two two- mode are quite different. For those converters where LI and
switch converters with two inductors shown in Fig. 11. A L2 always have the same functionality, the inductors can be
voltage-bidirectional switch is needed to realize S2. The coupled on the same magnetic core.
converter with continuous output current is named BuSBB, The equations of volt-seconds applied in a switching
while the converter with continuous input current is named period for all three inductor types are shown in Table II,
BoSBB. where the last row stands for the inductor(s) in single-switch
buck-boost converters (SSBB). Using these equations, the
V. PERFORMANCECOMPARISONS IN PFC total volt-seconds applied for boost, single-switch buck-boost
APPLICATIONS and two-switch buck-boost converters are ploted in Fig 12 as
functions of time over one half of the ac line cycle. Three
In this section, the performance of two-switch buck-boost curves are shown, based on different rms input voltages and a
converters as universal-input power-factor-correctors will be fixed switching frequency of 100 kHz. For single-switch and
evaluated and compared to performance of the boost and the two-switch buck-boost converters, the output voltage is set to
single-switch buck-boost converters in terms of component 325V, while the boost dc output voltage is 450V. The peak
stresses, conduction losses and size of magnetics. It is volt-seconds applied to the inductors for all two-switch buck-
assumed that converters are operating in continous boost converters has the smallest value of 0.812 (mvs),
conduction mode (CCM). compared to 1.8 (mvs) for all single-switch buck-boost
converters, and 1.125 (mvs) for boost converter.

+W~Vrm. M +vln.9ovn.
--CWrnVrmS om- --cvn-z2ovrm*
om12
M
..._..
Wh305vnn ___.
_.-..-...__
.._....-.-vn9ffivn.

0012-

.. ...
1
d.
.
1

Fia. 12 The volt-seconds applied to the inductors (a) boost, (b) single-switch buck

140
 Boost v.s=~,lsin~I--sin v; . 2 w).T,
vn
V , : output voltage, VM: peak input voltage, T, :switching period
TABLE111
COMPARISON OF SWITCH VOLTAGE STRESS
The different roles of inductors also lead to different
conduction losses. Numerical results of worst-case inductor
copper losses for all two-switch topologies are plotted in Fig.
13 and compared to the boost converter and the single-switch
buck-boost (SSBB) converter. The results are shown as
functions of the dc output voltage and normalized to the
copper losses in the boost converter with fixed 450V output.
Compared to the single-switch buck-boost converters, all
two-switch topologies exhibit significantly lower stresses
(volt-seconds and rms current) on inductors and can therefore
have significantly reduced size of magnetics. By
appropriately selecting the output voltage, the peak volt-
seconds of inductors in all the two-switch converters can be
45% of that in the single-switch buck-boost converter and
72% of the boost converter. The inductor conduction loss in
BoIBB can be as low as 50% of the boost converter loss.
B . Switches
The switch voltage stress comparison is shown in Table III:
The switches in the boost cells of superimposed topologies
have the same voltage stress as the single-switch buck-boost
converters, while all other two-switch converters have lower
voltage stresses.
The worst-case main-switch conduction losses are plotted
in Fig. 14 in comparison to the boost converter and the
single-switch buck-boost converter. In this comparison, we
assume all devices have the same on-resistance, and so we
compare the total transistor rms currents. In practice, for
same die size, the on-resistance for higher voltage rating
would be higher.
BoIBB and BoCBB have significantly lower conduction
losses (50%-70%when the output is set between 200-4OOV)
on switches compared to the single-switch buck-boost.
Furthermore, BoIBB shows performance comparable to the
741
0.5 4
Fig. 14
150 200 250 300 325 350 400 450 !
Worst-case switch conduction losses compared to the boost
boost converter in terms of switch voltage stresses and
conduction losses, while it has lower inductor conduction
losses (50% of the boost converter) and lower inductor volt-
seconds (72% of the boost converter). These results lead to
smaller magnetic size. Low stresses and high efficiency over
universal-input voltage range have been demonstrated in an
experimental BoIBB rectifier [8].
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Several families of two-switch buck-boost converters that
can achieve minimum indirect energy delivery are generated
through a synthesis method based on equivalent ac and dc
circuits. Two-switch converters can function as a boost or as
a buck depending on the inputloutput operating conditions.
Among generated two-switch converters there are several
new topologies that significantly outperform single-switch
buck-boost converters in terms of switch and inductor
stresses. One of the new two-switch buck-boost converters
(Boost Interleaved Buck-Boost, or BoIBB) is identified with
switch stresses significantly smaller than in cascaded buck-
boost converters, and with lower copper losses and smaller
magnetic size compared to the boost converter. In power
factor correction applications, further advantages of this new
configuration include the ability to choose the output dc
voltage arbitrarily, and the absence of the inrush current
problem.
REFERENCES
D. Zhou, “Synthesis of PWM Dc-to-Dc Power Converters,” Ph.D.
thesis, California Institute of Technology, October 1995.
P. Lee, Y. Lee, D. Cheng, and X. Liu, “Steady-State Analysis of an
Interleaved Boost Converter with Coupled Inductors,” IEEE Trans. on
Industrial Electronics, Vol. 47, No. 4, August 2000, pp787-795.
B. Lin and H. Lu, “A Novel PWM Scheme for Single-phase Three-
Level Power-Factor-Correction Circuit,” IEEE Trans. On Industrial
Electronics, Vol. 47, No. 2, April 2000.
D. Maksimovic and R.Erickson, “Universal-Input,High-Power-Factor,
Boost Doubler Rectifiers,” Proc. IEEE APEC, 1995 Record, pp. 459-
465.
D. Wolaver, “Fundamental Study of Dc to Dc Conversion System,”
Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,January 1969.
R. Erickson, “Synthesis of Switched-Mode Converters,’’ Proc. IEEE
PESC, June 1983, pp. 9-22.
D. Maksimovic, “Synthesis of PWM and Qua.i-Resonant Dc-to-Dc
Power Converters,” Ph.D. thesis, California.
J. Chen, D. Maksimovic and R. Erickson, “A New Low-Stress Buck-
Boost Converter for Universal-Input PFC Applications,” Proc. IEEE
APEC, March 4-82001, pp. 343-349.