POWERENG 2009

Lisbon, Portugal, March 18-20, 2009

Stability Analysis of a Buck Converter with Input

Filter Based on an LPV Formalism
Pierre Lefranc1 , Emmanuel Godoy2 , Gilles Duc2 , Muhammad Usman Iftikhar1
1

Energy Department, 2 Automatic Control Department

SUPELEC, 3 rue Joliot Curie
Gif-sur-Yvette, F-91192 France
Email: pierre.lefranc@supelec.fr
Tel: +33(0)1.69.85.15.08
Fax : +33(0)1.69.85.15.39

AbstractThis paper presents stability analysis of a Buck converter based on an LPV (Linear Parameter-Varying) approach.
Theoretical stability analysis of DC-DC converters is not so easy
especially with wide variations of input voltage and load. Authors
propose a theoretical method that can be used by converter
designers.
A nonlinear model of buck converter is proposed to achieve
stability analysis. The main control law is based on a statefeedback. The input voltage and load power variations are
specied in ranges and variations can be as fast as possible. LPV
analysis of a PI-feedback and a state-feedback are compared to
show drawbacks of conventional PI-feedback. Simulation results
are presented to verify stability analysis. They are based on two
model levels: a nonlinear averaged model and a switched model.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Stability analysis of power converters can become very difcult especially in case of large bandwidth because it requires
to satisfy severe constraints. Buck converter is widely used
with input lter which further increases its model complexity.
The most important difculty comes from variations of model
parameters (such as input voltage and load resistance) as will
be explained more in details later. So, nonlinearities are present
in Buck converter averaged model such as structure changes
(Continuous Conduction Mode and Discontinuous Conduction
Mode) and product between state vector and control signal.
This paper proposes a theoretical approach that goes farther
than classical methods such as linearized averaged models.
The method proposed here is based on the LPV formalism
(Linear Parameter-Varying). In our application (Buck converter
with input lter) the nonlinear system is converted to a quasiLPV model with linear dependency with respect to some
parameters. The results presented here are restrictive compared
to LPV but are simple to be used by power designers.
State-feedback control is introduced here to propose an
active solution to stabilize the converter with the input lter.
In general, it is recommended to add passive RC components
to stabilize converters with input lter [1]. But, these solutions
can lead to a huge increase of power losses as recently
specied in [2] especially in case of Buck converters.
In section II, some quasi-static constraints are presented to
design Buck converter with input lter. The limit between

978-1-4244-2291-3/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE

CCM (Continuous Conduction Mode) and DCM (Discontinuous Conduction Mode) is plotted. In section III, a nonlinear
averaged model is presented which leads to a linearized
stability analysis and design of PI and state-feedback control.
In section IV, new formulation and LPV stability analysis
are proposed. Nonlinear and switched-mode simulations are
proposed to analyze and verify stability.
II. B UCK CONVERTER DESIGN
A. Review of Buck converter and constraints
Buck converter with input lter is studied here especially
from the viewpoint of dynamic analysis and control design.
But values of different components such as capacitors and
inductors must be calculated under constraints. The Buck
converter studied here is presented in Fig. 1. Here, a 48V24V-1kW-50kHz Buck converter is considered (see Tab. I for
constraints details).

Fig. 1.
switch

Buck converter with input lter, resistive output load and MOSFET

B. Buck design
With the help of [3] and [4], numerical values for L1 ,C1 ,
L and C are given in Tab. II.
In order to verify that the converter operates in CCM in
the range of Po [100W, 1kW ] and Vi [30V, 55V ], the
boundary between CCM and DCM is plotted in Fig. 2. Two
quantities are introduced (see [4] for more details):
Vo
2IL LF
H=
and =
(1)
Vi
Vi
In Fig. 2 the operating points are plotted with crosses. It can
be noticed that the converter operates in CCM in the range of

140

POWERENG 2009

Lisbon, Portugal, March 18-20, 2009

TABLE I
P RINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSTRAINTS
ViN

Nominal input voltage

dx
(3)
= Aj x + Bj vi
dt
With j = [1, 2] for phase 1 and phase 2.
Phase 1:

0
0
0 L11
L1
1

dx
0
C11
0
C1
x + 0 vi (4)
=
1
1

0
0
L
0
dt
L
1
1
0
0
0
RC
C

48V

Nominal output voltage

VoN

24V

Nominal output power

PoN

1kW
Vi [30V , 55V ]

Vi

Input voltage range

For each phase, the state-space model is [1]:

100W < Po < PoN

Output power range for CCM

Output voltage ripple

Vo

Input current ripple

I1

5% I1N

Filter voltage ripple

V1

5% ViN

Switching frequency

50kHz

2% VoN

Phase 2:

TABLE II
N UMERICAL VALUES OF PASSIVE COMPONENTS
Filter inductor

L1

3.8H

Filter capacitor

C1

150F

Output inductor

40H

Output capacitor

40F

1
dx
C1
=
0
dt
0

L11
0
0
0

1
0
L1

0
x + 0 vi
1

0
L
1
0
RC

0
0
0

1
C

(5)

Nonlinear averaged model is the average of phase 1 and

phase 2:
d
x
x
vi (6)
+ (B1 d + B2 (1 d))
= (A1 d + A2 (1 d))
dt
Where d is the duty-cycle variable and vi the input voltage.
We dene x
, d and vi the average values of x, d and vi . Small
variations in average values are:

boundary between CCM and DCM

x
=X +x
; d = D + d ; vi = Vi + vi

converter proposed
DCM

(7)

Where X, D and Vi are steady-state values.

Thus the linearized averaged model is obtained considering
steady-state values:

CCM

d
x
dt

Fig. 2. Static characteristics of buck converter, boundary between CCM and

DCM, Vi [30V, 55V ] and Po =100W

L11
0

1
C1
=
D
0
L
0
0
1

0
CD1
0
1
C

0
0
DVi
0
RC1
x
+
Vi
L1
L
1
0
RC

L1

+
0 vi
0

[30V, 55V] for an ouput power of 100W. This further veries

that it is also true in the range of 100W to 1kW.
III. N ONLINEAR AVERAGED MODEL , CONVENTIONAL

B. PI control design and analysis

STABILITY ANALYSIS

Now we present a conventional stability analysis and control

design based on linearized averaged model. First, a nonlinear
averaged model is proposed, and in a second step, equations
are linearized [1], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
A. Nonlinear averaged models
We consider the converter of Fig. 1 in CCM; two equivalents
circuits are considered :
Phase 1: MOSFET switched on, diode off (Fig. 3.a)
Phase 2: MOSFET switched off, diode on (Fig. 3.b)
A state-space representation is written for each phase, using
the state-space vector:
x = [i1 v1 iL vo ]T

(8)

(2)

A brief analysis and design of a PI controller is proposed

here. The purpose is to provide a minimal phase margin of
45o considering the output power varying in the range 100W1kW. To do so, open-loop Bode diagrams are plotted in Fig.
4 without controller.
It can be noticed a phase shift at 4.25 104 rad/s, which
is due to the presence of the input lter. The worst case
corresponds to an output power of 100W. Because of this
characteristic and the resulting magnitude peak, open-loop
bandwidth with PI controller must be limited to around
1.35 104 rad/s. Open-loop Bode diagrams with PI controller
are plotted in Fig. 5.
It is veried that the stability margin is around 90o . Final
verication will be done in the next section with time-domain
simulations and will be compared to state-feedback controller.

141

POWERENG 2009

Lisbon, Portugal, March 18-20, 2009

(a) Phase 1

(b) Phase 2
Fig. 3.

Equivalent circuits of the Buck converter

The new state-space vector is dened as:

Magnitude (dB)

60

x = [i1 v1 iL vo I ]T

50

The new linearized model is:

40
30

20
10

d
x
dt

Phase (deg)

0
0

-180

10

10
Frequency (rad/sec)

L11
0

1
C1
D
=
0
L
0
0
0
0
1

0
CD1
0
1
C

+ 0 vi +

10

Fig. 4. Open-loop Bode diagram of vo /d without controller for different

output power in the range of 100W to 1kW

0
0
0
0
1

0
0
L1
1
RC
1

0
0
0
0
0

x
+

DVi
RC
1
Vi
L

0
0

vref

d = K x

0
-10

Which can be written as:

d
x
+ Fccm d + Bccm vi + Gccm vref
= Accm x
dt
The control law is dened by a state-feedback:

10

Magnitude (dB)

L1

-360

-540

(11)

(12)

(13)

With : K = [k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 ].
This leads to:
d
x
x + Bccm vi + Gccm vref
(14)
= (Accm Fccm K)
dt
To calculate vector K, we use a pole placement method
which makes use of the following equation that represents the
characteristic polynomial of the closed-loop system:

-20
-30
-40
-50
0

Phase (deg)

(10)

-180
-360

|I (Accm Fccm K)| =

-540
-720
3

10

10
Frequency (rad/sec)

(2 + 20 0 + 02 )
(2 + 21 1 + 12 )
( + 2 )

10

Fig. 5. Open-loop Bode diagram of vo /d with PI controller for different

output power in the range of 100W to 1kW

C. State-feedback control design and analysis

In order to regulate output voltage vo , we introduce a new
variable in the state-space vector:
 t
I =
(vref ( ) vo ( ))d
(9)

(15)

The dominant dynamic characteristics are determined by

the angular frequency 0 and the damping coefcient 0 of
the equivalent second order system:
4
0 = 2 10 rad/s
= 0.7
1 and 2 values are higher to 0 and are chosen arbitrarily:
4
1 = 4 10 rad/s
5
2 = 1 10 rad/s

142

POWERENG 2009

Lisbon, Portugal, March 18-20, 2009

Moreover, to obtain an optimal second order system we choose

1 = 0.7.
Elements of vector K are calculated for an output power
equal to 100W that correspond to the worst case with respect
to the phase margin according to Fig. 4 : k1 = 0.078, k2 =-1.41,
k3 = 0.117, k4 =0.0852, k5 = -1216.

25.0 V

Output voltage [V]

24.5 V

D. Time-domain verications of the proposed control laws,

comparisons and improvements

24.0 V
23.5 V
23.0 V
22.5 V

In order to validate stability analysis and controllers deR

sign, simulations with Matlab/Simulink
are performed using
R

SimPowerSystems library . A nonlinear equivalent circuit is
proposed rst in order to have a short simulation time. The
averaged equivalent circuit is proposed in Fig. 6.

100W
500W
1000W

22.0 V
29.0 ms 30.0 ms 31.0 ms 32.0 ms 33.0 ms 34.0 ms
Time [s]

Fig. 8.
Simulated output voltage vo with state-feedback controller
(instantaneous output power variation 10%, Po =100W, 500W and 1kW,
R
simulation results)
Matlab/Simulink

to 100W). In the next section, we propose a method based on

an LPV system analysis in order to guarantee global stability
([8], [9] and [10]).
IV. LPV MODEL AND STABILITY ANALSYIS
Fig. 6.

Nonlinear equivalent averaged circuit

A. Introduction: LPV basics

First of all, we validate small-signal design controller. To

do so, it is considered small output power variations (10% of
the output power). In Fig. 7, the PI controller is tested and
validated.

Where represents the vector of parameters: = [1 m ]

A particular formulation of LPV systems considers the case
where the matrices are linear parameter dependent:

m
A() = a0 +  i=1 i ai

m
B() = b0 + i=1 i bi
(17)
m
C() = c0 + i=1 i ci

m
D() = d0 + i=1 i di

25.0 V

Output voltage [V]

24.5 V
24.0 V
23.5 V
23.0 V
22.5 V

Global stability analysis can be performed with an LPV

(Linear Parameter-Varying) formalism ([8], [9] and [10]). We
consider linear systems described by:

x = A() x + B() u
(16)
y = C() x + D() u

100W
500W
1000W

If the designed controller is xed (i.e. independent of ), the

state-space representation of the closed-loop system remains
linearly dependent towards . Stability analysis of such a
closed-loop system leads to the resolution of a Linear Matrix
Inequality system (LMI).

22.0 V
29.0 ms 30.0 ms 31.0 ms 32.0 ms 33.0 ms 34.0 ms
Time [s]

Fig. 7.
Simulated output voltage vo with PI controller (instantaneous
R
output power variation 10%, Po =100W, 500W and 1kW, Matlab/Simulink
simulation results)

In a second step, we validate small-signal design of the

state-feedback controller (Fig. 8). In this case, we notice that
there are no oscillations on the output voltage, contrary to the
PI controller.
The main drawback of this method for controller design is a
lack of numerical tool to analyze and guarantee global stability.
For example, we cannot guarantee that the converter is stable
if the output power varies from 100W to 1kW (or from 1kW

B. LPV model based on linear formulation of parameters for

a Buck converter
Nonlinear state-space model of the Buck converter can be
written as:
d
x
x
vi (18)
+ (B1 d + B2 (1 d))
= (A1 d + A2 (1 d))
dt
Or:
d
x
+ A2 x
+ (B1 B2 )
vi d + B2 vi (19)
= (A1 A2 )dx
dt
In this formulation, it can be noticed that there is a product
This difculty can be resolved by introducing
between x
and d.

143

POWERENG 2009

Lisbon, Portugal, March 18-20, 2009

elements of the state-space vector as parameters in vector

. This will lead to a quasi-LPV formulation. But an
important consequence must be considered: conservatism of
the analysis result. For the Buck converter studied here, we
use the parameter vector as follows:
1
(20)
iL v1 ]T
R
We have chosen to represent variations around steady-state
values, so:
=[

0 = [G0 =

1 Rmin + Rmax
iL0 = G0 v0 vi0 ]T
2 Rmin Rmax
d = D0 + u

With:
Po [Pmin =
So the new formulation

1

2
3

v02
v02
Pmax =
]
Rmax
Rmin

(21)
(22)

(23)

This further leads to:

3

d
x
(ai bi K)i ) x
+N vref + z (31)
= ((a0 b0 K)+
dt
i=1
R
Using this formulation and LPV analysis function of Matlab
,
we obtain the following results:
The closed-loop system is stable with a closed-loop gain
(between vref and vo ) less than 1.4 in the overall range
of variations of dened previously.
As a consequence, for any value of , the closed-loop resonance is less than 3dB in the overall range of parameters
variation.
The analysis guarantees that the modulus margin is
greater than 0.8 in the variation range.
This formulation and analysis can be used for the PI
controller too. In that case, the state-feedback is:

K = [0 0 0 k

is = 0 + with:
[G , G]
[G vo , G vo ]
[0.2 vi , 0.2 vi ]

(24)

k
]
Ti

(32)

The LPV analysis of this controller does not lead to the

convergence of the LMI algorithm (Linear Matrix Inequality).
So, we cannot conclude about global stability of the PI
controller with variation range.

And:
G =

1
1
1 Rmax Rmin
1

)=
(
2 Rmin
Rmax
2 Rmin Rmax

The nonlinear model presented in subsection III.A is

sidered with the new LPV formulation which leads to:

0
0
0
0 L11
0
1
0
D
0
0
C1

C1
D0
1

a0 =
0

0
L
L
G0
1

0
0

0
C
C
0
0
0
1 0

0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
a1 =

a2 = a3 = 0
0 0 0 1 0
C
0 0 0
0
0

0
0
0
i10
1
0
vC
C
1
i0

b0 =
L b 1 = 0 b 2 = 0 b3 = L
0
0
0
0
0
0

C. Verications with switched model

(25)
con-

(26)

R
Simulations are performed with Matlab/Simulink
for nonR

linear averaged model and with Simplorer (Fig. 9). A comparison between averaged and switched model is presented.
First of all, control design and analysis is veried in case
of small power variations. In Fig. 10, the output power
varies from 100W to 110W, and in Fig. 11 from 1000W to
1100W. These simulations conrm that averaged modeling is
suitable for analysis and control design in case of small-signal
variations. It will be conrmed by simulation that it is true in
case of global stability.

(27)

Fig. 9.

(28)

R
Simplorer
schematics and simulation sheet

Therefore, the new generalized formulation is:

3
3


d
x
i ai ) x
+(b0 +
i bi ) u+N vref + z (29)
= (a0 +
dt
i=1
i=1

Where z is a perturbation quantity that depends on D0 and

vi0 . The state-feedback control law is introduced in new LPV
formulation with:
u = K x

(30)

Then in a second step, in Fig. 12 output power varies from

500W to 1000W, and in Fig. 13 from 100W to 1000W. These
simulations validate LPV stability analysis of state-feedback
controller for the case of large ouput power variations.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper is about global stability analysis of Buck converter with input lter in CCM. Considering a simple nonlinear

144

POWERENG 2009

Lisbon, Portugal, March 18-20, 2009

averaged model of the converter, a new method is proposed

100W to 110W
100W to 1000W
25.0 V

24.5 V
24.0 V

Output voltage [V]

Output voltage [V]

25.0 V

23.5 V
23.0 V
22.5 V
22.0 V

switch
average

7.0 ms

7.5 ms

8.0 ms

20.0 V
15.0 V
10.0 V
5.0 V

Time [s]

switch
average

7.0 ms

7.5 ms

8.0 ms

8.5 ms

9.0 ms

Time [s]
R
Fig. 10. Comparison between averaged (Matlab/Simulink
) and switched
R
) models. Output voltage vo with state-feedback controller,
(Simplorer
instantaneous output power variation (10%), 100W to 110W.

to provide a theoretical proof of global stability based on an

LPV system analysis. For the moment, the control is based
on a linear method (pole placement), but the nal stability
analysis is based on nonlinear methods. In order to validate
stability analysis and nonlinear averaged model, simulations
have been carried out to compare switched models (closer to
reality) and nonlinear averaged model (short time simulation).
One step forward, authors have performed a global stability
analysis with a gain-scheduling strategy. However, a specic
LPV formulation is being developped to analyze such control
law. Preliminary models are established, simulations are in
progress and will be the subject of a forthcoming publication.

1000W to 1100W

Output voltage [V]

25.0 V
24.5 V
24.0 V
23.5 V
switch
average

23.0 V
22.5 V
22.0 V
4.5 ms

5.0 ms

5.5 ms

6.0 ms

R
Fig. 13. Comparison between averaged (Matlab/Simulink
) and switched
R
) models. Output voltage vo with state-feedback controller,
(Simplorer
instantaneous output power variation, 100W to 1000W.

6.5 ms

Time [s]

R EFERENCES
R
Fig. 11. Comparison between averaged (Matlab/Simulink
) and switched
R
) models. Output voltage vo with state-feedback controller,
(Simplorer
instantaneous output power variation (10%), 1000W to 1100W.

500W to 1000W

Output voltage [V]

24.0 V
22.0 V
switch
average

20.0 V
18.0 V
16.0 V
4.5 ms

5.0 ms

5.5 ms

6.0 ms

6.5 ms

Time [s]

R
Fig. 12. Comparison between averaged (Matlab/Simulink
) and switched
R
) models. Output voltage vo with state-feedback controller,
(Simplorer
instantaneous output power variation, 500W to 1000W.

[1] M.Usman Iftikhar, A.Bilal, D.Sadarnac, P.Lefranc and C.Karimi, Analysis

of input lter interactions in cascade buck converters, IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Technology ICIT08, Chengdu, Chine, 21-24
April 2008.
[2] M.Usman Iftikhar, Investigation of DC-DC Converter Modeling from the
Perspective of Control and Input-Filter Inuence, PhD Thesis, Supelec,
2008.
[3] R.E. Erickson, D. Maksimovic, Fundamentals of Power Electronics,
second edition, Springer Science, 2001.
[4] JP. Ferrieux, F. Forest, Alimentations a` decoupage, convertisseurs a`
resonance, Principes, Composants, Modelisation, second edition.
[5] R.D.Middlebrook, S.Cuk, A general unied approach to modelling
switching converters power stages, PESC76 Conf. Proc, 8-10 June 1976,
Cleveland, USA.
[6] M.Usman Iftikhar, D.Sadarnac, C.Karimi, Input lter damping design for
control loop stability of DC-DC converters, ISIE07 Conf. Proc, 4-7 June
2007, Vigo, Spain, pp.353-358.
[7] M.Usman Iftikhar, E.Godoy, P.Lefranc, D.Sadarnac, C.Karimi, A control
strategy to stabilize PWM DC-DC converters with input lters using statefeedback and pole-placement, INTELEC08 Conf. Proc, 14-19 September
2008, San Diago, USA.
[8] P.Lefranc, E.Godoy, G.Duc, Etude dune loi de commande a` gains
commutes sur un convertisseur abaisseur avec ltre dentree et analyse
de la stabilite par une approche LPV, EPF08 Conf. Proc, 2-3 July 2008,
Tours, France, pp.271-276.
[9] J.M. Biannic, Commande robuste des syst`emes a` Param`etres Variables.
Applications en aeronautique, PhD Thesis, CERT, 1996
[10] P. Apkarian , P. Gahinet , G. Becker, Self-scheduled H-innity control of
linear parameter-varying systems: a design example, Automatica, vol.31
no 9, pp. 1251-1261, 1995.

145