NONLINEAR CONTROL OF BOOST AC/DC CONVERTERS

OUTPUT VOLTAGE REGULATION AND POWER FACTOR CORRECTION

Abdelmajid ABOULOIFA, Fouad GIRI, Ibtissam LACHKAR

GREYC, ISMRA, 6 Bd Maréchal Juin, 14050 Caen

Abstract: We are considering the problem of controlling AC/DC switched power converters of
the Boost type. The control objectives are twofold: (i) regulating the output voltage to a desired
reference value, (ii) assuring a unitary power factor by enforcing the voltage and the current
delivred by the electric network to be in phase. The considered problem is dealt with by designing
a nonlinear controller involving a cascade-structure. The inner loop regulates the active power; it
is built-up using the backstepping design approach. The outer loop regulates the converter squared
output voltage using a filtered PI regulator. The controller thus obtained is shown, using tools
from the averaging theory, to achieve its objectives. Copyright © 2005 IFAC

Keywords: Power converters, Voltage control, power factor correction.

1. INTRODUCTION the considered control problem a nonlinear controller

Static power converters have a very wide domain of
applications. However, these converters still have an
important drawback as they contribute to the
pollution of the electric network. Indeed, these
converters constitute nonlinear loads for the
distribution network and, consequently, generate
harmonic currents that may cause some annoying
effects such as extra power losses in the network.
Therefore, converter controllers should not only have
as objective output voltage regulation, but also
rejection of the mentioned current harmonics. Most
of previous works have focussed only on voltage
regulation (Sira, et al., 1997).
In the present paper, we are considering the problem
of controlling a whole AC/DC converter (Mechi and
Funabiki, 1993;). We will particularly focus on
AC/DC converters with boost chopper (Fig.1). Our
objective is to regulate the output voltage while
ensuring a unitary power factor (PF). The last
objective amounts to rejecting the whole current
harmonics at the converter input. On the other hand,
AC/DC converters are featured by their variable-
structure and their nonlinear dynamics. To deal with
including two loops is built-up.
The inner loop is first developed, using the
backstepping technique, in such a way that the
converter input current be sinusoidal and in phase
with the network supply voltage. The converter
variable-structure feature is coped with basing the
above regulator design upon an average model of the
system. It is worth noting, that model averaging is
widely used in the literature (Krein, 1990).
The natural purpose of the outer loop would be the
regulation of the converter output voltage vo.
However, we will choose to perform regulation of v o2
rather than vo. Actually, v o2 undergoes a (first-order)
linear differential equation while vo undergoes a
nonlinear equation. Using this variable
transformation (vo → v o2 ), reference tracking on v o2
can be achieved using a filtered PI regulator.
A theoretical analysis, involving tools from the
Lyapunov stability and the averaging theory, shows
that the nonlinear cascade controller thus constructed
actually achieves, in the mean, its objectives. The
controller performances and robustness (with respect Similarly, the current i Do in the diode Do undergoes
to load changes) are further illustrated by many different laws, depending on the states of the IGBT-
simulated examples. switch. It is given by:
i Do = (1 − µ ).i Lo (8)
2. MODELLING OF THE CONVERTER Substituting (5), (7) and (8) in (1)-(4), yields the final
form of the (instantaneous) converter model:
The converter under study is represented by Fig.1 It di n v rect vn
includes three main parts, namely a LC-filter, a diode =− + (9a)
dt L L
bridge rectifier and a boost chopper. The latter
dv rect i Losign ( v rcet ) in
operates according to the Pulse Width Modulation =− + (9b)
(PWM) principle, (Mahdavi, et al., 1997). This dt C C
means that time is shared in intervals of length T. di Lo
=
v rect
−
(1 − µ ) v (9c)
Within any period, the IGBT-switch is ON during dt Lo Lo o

αT, for some 0≤α≤1. Then, energy is stored in the

inductance Lo and the diode Do is blocked. During dv o
=
(1 − µ ) i −
vo
(9d)
Lo
the rest of the period, i.e. (1-α)T, the switch IGBT is dt Co R o Co
OFF and, consequently, the inductance discharges in This model is useful to build-up an accurate
the load resistance Ro. The value of α varies from a simulator for the converter. However, it cannot be
period to an other and its variation law determines based upon to design a continuous control law as it
the trajectory of output voltage vo. The variable α, involves a binary control input, namely µ. To
called duty cycle, then turns out to be the control overcome this difficulty, it is usually resorted to the
input for the converter. averaging process over cutting intervals, (Krein,
1990). This process is shown to give rise to average
Mathematical modeling of the converter is completed versions (of the above model) involving as a control
applying Kirchhoff’s laws. So doing, one gets: input the mean value of µ which is nothing other than
di n v v the duty cycle α. The average model turns out to be
= − rect + n (1) the following:
dt L L
di n v rect vn
dv rect i rect in =− + (10a)
=− + (2) dt L L
dt C C
dv rect i Losign ( v rcet ) in
di L o v IGBT v rect =− + (10b)
=− + (3) dt C C
dt Lo Lo
di Lo
=
v rect
−
(1 − α ) v (10c)
dv o vo dt Lo Lo o
Co = i Do − (4)
dt Ro
dv o
=
(1 − α ) i −
vo
(10d)
The current irect flowing in the input rectifier is dt Co Lo
R o Co
obtained from (5):
i rect = iosign v rect (5) ( )
The voltage v IGBT takes undergoes different 3. CONTROLLER DESIGN
equations depending on the state of the IGBT-switch.
These equations can be given a unique mathematical The controller synthesis will be performed in two
expression by introducing a binary variable µ : major steps. First, a current inner loop is designed to
1 if IGBT is ON cope with the PFC issue. In the second step, an outer
µ= (6) voltage loop is built-up to achieve voltage regulation.
0 if IGBT is OFF
Then, one has for v IGBT the following expressions:
3.1 Current inner loop design
v IGBT = (1 − µ )v o (7) The PFC objective means that the converter input
current should be sinusoidal and in phase with the
Lo iDo Do network supply voltage. We therefore seek a
regulator that enforces the current in to track a
D1 D2 iLo iCo iRo vo def
in L irect reference signal of the form i nref = β v n . At this
vn |vrect| vIGBT
iC
C vrect
Co
Ro point the parameter β is any real number. The
IGBT
regulator will now be designed using the
backstepping technique (Krstic, 1995), based on the
D4 D3 (partial) model (10a-c).

Fig.1. AC/DC Boost converter

3.1.1 Step 1: Stabilization of the sub-system (10a) z& 2 = − z 1 − c 2 z 2 (22)
Replacing in (22) z& 2 by its expression (19) and
Let us introduce the following tracking error:
solving the resulting equation with respect to
z 1 = i n − i nref (11) i Losign ( v rect )
, yields the following stabilising
def LC
where i nref = β v n denote the corresponding function:
reference signal. Using (10a), time-derivation of (11) in dσ
yields the following error dynamics: δ = −z1 − c 2 z 2 + + (23)
LC dt
dz1 v rect vn di nref
=− + − (12) i Lo sign ( v rect )
dt L L dt As is not the actual control input, a
In (12), (− v rect L ) stands as a (virtual) control
LC
new error variable z3 between the virtual control and
variable. Then, z1 can be regulated to zero if its desired value δ is introduced:
− (v rect L ) = σ where σ is a stabilising function
i Lo sign ( v rect )
defined by: z3 = −δ (24)
LC
vn di nref Then, equation (19) becomes, using (23) and (24):
σ=− + − c1 z 1 (13)
L dt z& 2 = − z1 − c 2 z 2 + z3 (25)
Indeed, this choice would imply that: z& 1 = −c1 z 1 Also, the Lyapunov function derivative becomes:
(where c1>0 is a design parameter) which clearly
establishes asymptotyc stability of (12) with respect & = −c z 2 − c z 2 + z z
W (26)
2 1 1 2 2 2 3
to the Lyapunuv function :
W1 = 0.5z12 (14)
Because: 3.1.3 Step 3: Stabilization of the sub-system (10a-c)
W& = −c z 2 < 0 (15)
1 1 1

As (− v rect L ) is not the actual control input, a new

Time-derivation of z3 gives, using (24) and (10c):
dz3 sign ( v rect )  v rect (1 − α)  dδ
error variable z2 between the virtual control and its = − vo − (27)
dt LC  L Lo  dt
desired value σ (stabilising function) is introduced:  o 
z 2 = − v rect L − σ (16) The actual control variable, namely α, appears for the
Then, equation (12) becomes, using (13) and (16): first time in equation (27). An appropriate control
law for generating α, has now to be found for the
z& 1 = −c1 z1 + z 2 (17)
system (17), (25), (27) whose state vector is (z1, z2,
Also, the Lyapunov function derivative becomes : z3). Let us consider the Lyapunov function W3:
W3 = W2 + 0.5z32 (28)
& = −c z 2 + z z
W (18)
1 1 1 1 2 Its time-derivative along trajectory of (26) and (27) is:
dW3
3.1.2 Step 2: Stabilization of the sub-system (10a-b) = −c1 z12 − c2 z 22
dt
 sign ( v ) v (1 − α) dδ  (29)
Achieving the PFC objective amounts to enforcing + z3  rect
( rect − vo ) − + z2 
 LC Lo Lo dt 
the error variables (z1, z2) to vanish. To this end, one  
needs the dynamics of z2. Deriving (16), it follows This shows that, for the (z1, z2, z3)-system to be
from (10b) that: globally asymptotically stable, it is sufficient to
dz 2 i Losign ( v rect ) in dσ choose the control α so that W& = −c z 2 − c z 2 − c z 2
3 1 1 2 2 3 3
= − − (19)
dt LC LC dt which in view of (29) amounts to ensuring that:
i Losign ( v rect ) sign ( v rect )  v rect (1 − α)  dδ
In the above equation, the quantity − vo − + z 2 = −c3 z 3 (30)
LC LC  L Lo  dt
 o 
stands as a “virtual control input”. We now need to
Solving the resulting equation with respect to α ,
select a Lyapunov function W2 for the (z1, z2)-system.
yields the following backstepping control law:
As the objective is to drive its states (z1, z2) to zero, it
is natural to choose the following function: Lo LCsign ( v rect )  dδ  v rect
α = 1−  z 2 + c3 z 3 −  − (31)
W2 = W1 + 0.5z 22 (20) vo  dt  vo
Using (18) and (19), this implies:
& = −c z 2 + z (z + z& )
W (21) Proposition 3.1. Consider the system, next called
2 1 1 2 1 2
inner closed-loop, consisting of the subsystem (10a-
This shows that, for the (z1, z2)-system to be globally d) and the control law (31). If the ratio β and its three
asymptotically stable, it is sufficient to choose the first derivatives are available, then the inner closed-
& = −c z 2 − c z 2 (for any
virtual control input so that W2 1 1 2 2 loop system undergoes, in the (z1, z2, z3)-coordinates,
c2>0). Then, it follows from (21) that: the following equation:
  z1   − c1 1 0   z1 
d  
 z 2  =  − 1 − c2 1   z 2  (32)
Pn = βv̂ n sin 2 (ω n .t ) =
2 β v̂ n 2
2
(1 − cos(2ω .t))
n
(36)
dt   
 z3   0 − 1 − c3   z 3  On the other hand, the power that is actually
    
transmitted to the load is Pload = v o i equ . But, the
Consequently, the error vector (z1, z2, z3) is globally entering instantaneous power is integrally transmitted
asymptotically vanishing. to the load (which is the only dissipative element).
Then, the quantity Pload does coincide with Pn, this

3.2 Outer voltage loop design yields: i equ = β

The aim of the outer loop is to generate a tuning law
for the ratio β in such a way that the output voltage vo
be regulated to a given reference value voref.
Relation between β and vo. The first step in designing
such a loop is to establish the relation between the
ratio β (control input) and the output voltage vo. This
is the object of the following proposition.
Proposition 3.2. Consider the power converter
described by (10a-d) and the inner control loop
defined by (31). Under the same assumptions as in
Proposition 3.1, one has the following properties:
1°) The output voltage vo varies in response to the
tuning ratio β according to the following equation:
dv o
dt
=−
vo
R o Co
+
v̂ n 2
2Co vo
(1 − cos(2ω t))β
v̂ 2n
(1 − cos(2ω t ) , which together with
n
2v o
(35) establishes (33).
2) Let us introduce the variable change y = v o2 in
(33). Deriving y with respect to time and using (33),
yields the first-order linear model (34) and completes
the proof of Proposition 3.2.
Squared output voltage control. The ratio β stands as
a control input in the system (34). The problem at
hand is to design for β a tuning law so that the
squared voltage y = v o2 tracks a given reference
def
2
signal y* = voref . Ignoring time-varying feature, of
the controlled (first order) system, a PI control law
should be sufficient. Bearing in mind the fact that the
third first derivatives of β should be available
n
(33) (Propositions 3.1 and 3.2), we rather use a filtered PI,

( )
3
 b 
i.e., β=  k p e1 + k i e 2 (37)
where v̂ n denotes the magnitude of the network b+s
(sinusoidal) voltage vn. t

2°) The squared voltage v o2 varies, in response to the e1 = y* − y ,

∫
e 2 = e1dt , (38)
tuning ratio β, according to the linear equation: 0
where s may denote as well the derivative operator
dy
dt
(
= −ay + k o 1 − cos(2ωn t ) β ) (34) (s=d/dt). At this point, the regulator parameters
2
(b, kp, ki) are any positive real constants.
R o Co v̂ n
where a= and ko =
2 Co
3.3 Control system analysis
Proof. 1) The first step consists in replacing the
circuit part above the set Co-Ro, by an equivalent
In the following Theorem, it is shown that the control
current generator, as shown by Fig. 2. In view of
objectives are achieved, in the mean, for a specific
equation (10d), the underlying current value iequ
class of reference signals, with an accuracy that
coincides with (1 − α)i Lo . So, (10d) becomes: depends on the network frequency ωn. To formulate
dvo iequ vo the results the following notations are needed:
= − (35)
dt Co R oCo
ε= 1 , a 0 = k o k i b 3 , a 1 = a + k o k p b 3
2ωn
( )
iC0 iR0 a 2 = 3ab 2 + b 3 , a 3 =3ab+3b2, a 4 =(a +3b )
iequ C0 R0 v0
Theorem 3.1 (main result). Consider the AC/DC
Boost power converter shown by Fig.1. together with
the controller consisting of the inner-loop regulator
Fig.2. Equivalent current generator (31) and the outer-loop regulator (37-38). Then, the
resulting closed-loop system has the following
The equivalent current iequ will now be expressed in properties:
function of the tuning ratio β, using power 1) The error in−inref vanishes asymptotically,
conservation arguments. Using the fact that in=βvn 2) Let the reference signal y* be nonnegative and
(because of Proposition 3.1), the instantaneous power periodic with period Nπ/ωn, where N any positive
entering the converter turns out to the following: integer. Furthermore, let the regulator parameters
 (b, kp, ki) be any positive real constants that satisfy  
the following inequalities: This readily implies that y*(t)= yr  2ωn t  and that yr
 N 
(a a4 3
) (
− a 2 a 2 − a 4 a1 − a 0 a 0 > 0) (39) is periodic, with period 2π. Let us now introduce the
time-scale change: τ=2ωn t . Then the term in y* in
[(a a − a2 )a − (a a − a ) a ](a a − a ) − (a a )
2
− a2 a0 > 0 (42) becomes:
( )
4 3 2 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 4 3

dyr τ
( )
(40) dy*(t)
Then, there exists a positive ε* such that for ε≤ε* , −ay*(t)− =−y r τ −2ωn N (44)
dt N dτ
the tracking error is a harmonic signal which depends It also follows from (41-42) that X undergoes the
continuously on ε , i.e. e1 =e1 (t, ε) . Moreover: differential equation:
lim e1 (t, ε)=0 dX =εg(τ, X, ε) (45)
ε →0 dτ
Remarks 3.2. where:
a) The first part of the Theorem says that the power   τ 
factor objective is actually achieved.  dy r   
τ
- ax − k (1 − cos(τ) )x + ay r   + 2ω  N 
b) The second part shows that the tracking  1 o 5 n
dτ 
N
objective is achieved, in the mean, with an  
g( τ, X, ε) =  x1 
accuracy that depends on the voltage network
frequency (ωn). The larger ωn the better tracking
 (
b − x 3 + k p x1 + k i x 2 ) 
objective.

 (
b − x 4 + x3 ) 

c) The period of the reference signal is any 
 b − x(5
+ x 4
) 

multiple of that of the power network (which is (46)
equal to π/ωn). That is, the reference signal is Now, let us introduce the average function
slower than the network voltage. This 2 πN

∫ g(τ, X, 0)dτ . It follows from (45) that:

1
particularly includes constant references. G (X) =
2πN 0

Proof of Theorem 3.1 (Outline).  - ax 1 − k o x 5 − ay r 

 
Part 1 of the Theorem is a direct consequence of  x1 
Proposition 3.1, using (37) which shows that β and

(
G (X ) = b − x 3 + k p x 1 + k i x 2 )


(47)
its derivatives (up to the third order) are available.  (
b − x4 + x3 ) 
This also guarantees that equation (34), in
Proposition 3.2, holds too. In order to prove the

 (
b − x5 + x4 ) 

second part of the Theorem l, let us introduce the where y r denotes the mean value of yr, which the
following state variables:
same as that of y*. Note that the mean value, over [0,
x 1 = e1 , x 2 = e 2 , 2πN], of the derivative in the first line of (46), is zero

b+s
( )
x 3 = b k pe1 + k i e2 ,, x 4 = b x 3, x 5 = b x 4
b +s b+s
because yr is periodic with period 2π. The averaging
theory suggests to get stability results regarding the
Then, it follows from (34) and (37-38) that the state system of interest (41-42), from analyzing the
vector X=[x1, x2, x3, x4, x5,]T undergoes the following following averaged system:
state equation: dZ
= εG ( Z) (48)
dX =f(t, X) (41) dt
dt To this end, notice that (48) has a unique equilibrium
where: at:
 dy * 
( )
T
- ax 1 − k o 1 − cos(2ω n t ) x 5 + ay * +   - ay r - ay r - ay r - ay r 
Z = 0,
*
, , ,  (49)
 dt   k 0 k i k0 k0 k0 
 x1  
f (X, t) = 
 b − x (
+ k x + k x 
 ) On the other hand, as (48) is linear, the stability
( )
3 p 1 i 2
properties of its equilibrium are full determined by
 b − x4 + x3 
( )
  the following state-matrix:
 b − x5 + x4   −a 0 0 0 −k o 
(42)  
 1 0 0 0 0 
Stability of the above system will now be dealt with A = bk p bk i − b 0 0  (50)
resorting to averaging analysis tools. First, as y* is  
 0 0 b −b 0 
periodic with period N/2ωn, it will prove to be useful  0 0 0
 b − b 
introducing the following auxiliary reference
function: The equilibrium Z* will be globally asymptotically
  stable if all eigenvalues of A have negative real parts.
yr (t)= y* N t  (43) The mentioned eigenvalues are the zeros of the
 2ωn  following characteristic polynomial:
 det(λI − A) = λ5 + a 4 λ4 + a 3 λ3 + a 2 λ2 + a 1 λ1 + a 0 (51)
It can be checked, applying for instance the well
known Routh’s algebraic criteria, that all zeros of
polynomial (51) will have negative real parts if its
coefficients (a0 to a4) satisfy (39-40).
Now applying averaging theory (see e.g. Theorem
4.1 in (Zhi-fen, et al 1992)), one concludes that there
exists a ε* > 0 such that for ε < ε* , the differential Fig. 5. current in Fig. 6. vn and in
equation (41-42) has a harmonic solution,
To analyze the robustness capability of the proposed
X = X ( t , ε) , that depends continuously on ε .
*
controller a load change is operated according to
Moreover, one has: lim X(t, ε) = Z Fig.7. Except for this change, the rest of the converter
ε →0
characteristics are the same as previously. The
This, together with (48), yields in particular that
resulting closed-loop system behavior is illustrated
im e1 (t, ε) = 0 . The Theorem is thus established. by figures 8 to 10. The first figure shows that the
ε →0
effect of the resistance changes on the output voltage
is well compensated. Fig. 9 shows that the PFC
4. SIMULATIONS property is preserved. Finally, Fig. 10 shows that
loop mode separation is still satisfied.
Performances and design aspects of the controller
will now be illustrated by simulations performed in
the Matlab/Simulink environment. The controlled
AC/DC converter has the following characteristics:
v̂ n = 60V , L = 2mH , C = 10µF , Lo = 20mH ,
C o = 4000µF R o = 20Ω and it operates at the cutting
frequency f c = 10khz . The reference squared output
2
voltage v oref is a step signal of amplitude 2500 Fig. 7. Load resistance Ro Fig. 8. voltage vo
(Volts)2. The values c1= 10000, c2=10000 and 15000
proved to be appropriate for the inner loop design
parameters. Bearing in mind Remark 2a, the outer
loop parameters have been chosen as follows:
k p = 0.005 , k i = 0.0011 and b = 1000 .

Figures 3 to 6 illustrate the controller performances.

As expected (Remark 2b), v o2 converge in the mean
to its reference value (see Fig. 3.). Furthermore, it is
checked that the observed voltage ripple oscillate at
the frequency 2ωn (Remark 2b) and is much smaller
than the average value of the signals.
Comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 5, one particularly sees
that the magnitude variation of the input current in is
correlated to the (mean) value of the squared output
voltage v o2 . This confirms the power conservation
through the circuit. Fig. 4 shows that the outer-loop
control β is practically unaffected by the ripple
phenomena. Finally, Fig. 6 shows that the input
current in and the output voltage vo are in phase,
ensuring a unitary power factor.
Fig. 3. squared voltage Fig. 4. singal β
Fig. 9. current in and voltage vn Fig. 10. signal β
REFERENCES
Krein P.T., J. Bentsman, R.M. Bass, and B.Lesieutre
(1990). On the use of averaging for analysis of
power electronic system. IEEE Transaction on
Power Electronics, Vol. 5, n° 2.
Krstic, M., I. Kanellakopoulos and P.V. Kokotovic
(1995). Nonlinear and adaptive control design (
John Willy & Sons, NY).
Mechi A. And S.Funabiki (1993). Step-up/down
voltage PWM AC to DC convector with one
switching device. IEE procedings-B, vol. 140,
no. 1, pp.35-43.
Sira-Ramirez H., R. Perez-Moreno, R. Ortega, and
M. Garcia-Esteban (1997). Passivity-based
controllers for the stabilisation of DC-to-DC
power converters, Automatica,.
Zhi-fen Z., D. Tong-ren, H. Wen-zao and D. Zhen-xi
(1992). Qualitative theory of differential
equations (American Mathematical Society,
Rhode Island, USA).