IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMSI: FUNDAMENTAL THEORY AND APPLICATIONS, VOL. 48, NO.
1, JANUARY 2001 103
Transactions Briefs__________________________________________________________________
A Stable Design of PI Control for DCDC Converters with
an RHS Zero
Jose Alvarez-Ramirez, Ilse Cervantes, Gerardo Espinosa-Perez,
Paul Maya, and America Morales
AbstractThe stability of boost and buckboost dcdc power converters
under proportional plus integral (PI) control is discussed in this paper. A
novel PI control configuration is proposed, which reveals the effect that
the right-hand -side zero has on PI control stability. Tuning rules in terms
of the converter parameters are derived and illustrated via numerical and
experimental simulations.
Index TermsDCDC power conversion, proportional plus integral con-
trol, tuning rules.
I. INTRODUCTION
Switch-mode pulsewidth-modulation (PWM) dcdc converters pro-
vide a constant output voltage. The two general approaches to control
switching regulators are: 1) voltage-mode control and 2) current-mode
control. The first scheme employs a loop that senses the output voltage
for feedback. The second scheme employs in addition, an inner cur-
rent loop that senses the inductor current for feedback purposes. Cur-
rent-mode control is becoming widely used in the power-supply in-
dustry because of several advantages over voltage-mode control. Ba-
sically, it is a multiloop approach. In the first step of the design, the
current gain is calculated to provide more damping by adjusting the
quality factor. The advantage of using this inner current loop becomes
evident when an unacceptable right-hand-side (RHS) zero is present,
as in the cases of boost and buckbucboost converters [1][3]. Sev-
eral design criteria for the current gain have been reported (see [3] for
instance). Recently, a design criterion with simple expressions for the
current gain to obtain a quality factor value of 0:7 was proposed [2]. In
the second step of the feedback circuit design, a proportional plus inte-
gral (PI) controller is used for the outer voltage loop. The basic idea of
using a controller with integral action is to induce robust output-voltage
regulation in the face of converter-parameter uncertainties (e.g., load
changes) and external disturbances (e.g., line-voltage changes) [4].
The aim of this paper is to design stable PI control for the outer
voltage control loop in the presence of a RHS zero. Our results apply
to both voltage-mode and current-mode control. The essence of the
paper is to investigate the effect of the RHS zero on the stability of the
controlled power converter. Instability results are derived from standard
root-locus analysis. Our contribution can be summarized as follows:
development of a novel gain parameterization for classical PI
control which enables clarification of the instability effects of the
RHS zero;
derivation of easy-to-use tuning guidelines that take into account,
the position of the RHS zero.
Manuscript received March 29, 1999; revised January 6, 2000 and July 3,
2000. This paper was recommended by Associate Editor A. Ioinovici.
The authors are with the Departamento de Ingenieria de Procesos e
Hidraulica, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, Mexico City,
09340 Mexico (e-mail: jjar@xanum.uam.mx).
Publisher Item Identifier S 1057-7122(01)00644-4.
10577122/01$10.00 2001 IEEE
II. MAIN RESULTS
The duty-ratio-to-output-voltage transfer function G(s) for the boost
and buckboost converters is equivalent to a second-order filter with a
high quality factor Q and an RHS zero [2]. The quality factor can be
reduced by a suitable selection of the current gain. However, the RHS
zero will remain at the same position despite the inner current loop. The
RHS zero z imposes a limit on the attainable closed-loop bandwidth of
the controlled converter [4]. It turns out that this limitation is indepen-
dent of a particular inner current loop design. In the following analysis,
we will derive a novel gain parameterization of classical PI control to
provide insight into the inherent limitation induced by the RHS zero.
To this end, we will proceed along the following steps:
1) The dynamics related to the RHS zero are taken as uncertain and
included into an I/O modeling error function.
2) A reduced-order observer is proposed to get an estimate of the
modeling error signal.
3) This estimated signal is used into a feedback function to cancel
to some extent, the effects of the I/O modeling errors, including
both parametric and dynamical uncertainties.
4) The stability of the voltage-control loop is studied via root locus
tools.
For the boost and buckboost converters, G(s) can be written as
follows [2]:
def v 1 z 01 s
0
G(s) = =c 2 (1)
d s + a1 s + a0
where v = V 0 V and d = D 0 D are the output-voltage and the
duty-ratio deviations respectively. The symbol 3 denotes nominal
value. The gain c > 0, the RHS zero z > 0 and the second-order
filter parameters fa1 > 0; a0 > 0g depend on the converter pa-
rameters fR; L; C g and on the operating conditions fI; V ; E; Dg;
where E is the nominal line voltage and I is the nominal current. In
current-mode control, the current gain directly affectsa1 , thus modi-
fying the quality factor Q [2]. Let us write the transfer function G(s) as
the composition of a minimum-phase function Gm (s) with an all-pass
filter Ga (s), namely, G(s) = Gm (s)Ga (s); where
01
1+z s 0s + z :
Gm (s) = c 2 and Ga (s) = (2)
s + a1 s + a0 s+z
Take Gm (s) as the nominal plant and take Ga (s) as unmodeled dy-
namics acting in the input channel. Furthermore, if we assume that the
actual circuit parameters are uncertain, then we have parametric uncer-
tainties in addition. Let vr = V 0 Vr be a desired output voltage and
e = v 0 vr = V 0 Vr be the regulation error. A state-space realization
of the system (1) in terms of the nominal transfer function Gm (s) and
the all-pass filter Ga (s) can be the described by [5]
e_ = 0 o01(e + vr ) + q 0 hGa (s) d
q_ = 0 a0 (e + vr ) + cGa (s) d
where o = a0
1
1 is the time-constant of the open circuit, q is an in-
ternal state, and h = cz 01 is the high-frequency gain. Let  o and h
104 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMSI: FUNDAMENTAL THEORY AND APPLICATIONS, VOL. 48, NO. 1, JANUARY 2001

Fig. 1. Experimental set up.

be estimates of the time-constant o and the high-frequency gain h, re-

spectively. Since the internal state q is not available for control design,
let us define the I/O modeling error function as (see [6])

( ) = 01a1 e 0  01v + q 0 G3 (s) d

 y; q; d o r a
Fig. 2. Time evolution of the output voltage for (a)  = 0:06 s, (b)  =
with G3 (s) = hG (s) 0 h. That is, the function  (y; q; d) contains
0:0175 s, and (c)  = 0:0163 s.
a a

all the parametric uncertainties and all-pass filters of the system. In this
way, we can write the system dynamics as follows: This model-based parameterization of the classical PI controller has the
advantage of revealing the inherent voltag- control limitations induced
_ = 0  01e + (y; q; d) 0 h d
e o by the RHS zero. In fact, the dynamics of the estimation error "  0 =
q_ = 0 a0 v + cG (s) d: a (3) can be written as [6]

Suppose that the controlled behavior is specified via the stable linear _ = 0 01 G (s)" + L(e; q; ")
" e a (8)
model e 0c01 e, where c > is the desired closed-loop time-con-
_= 0 where = h=h and L(e; q; ") is a linear function of its arguments.
stant. The ideal duty-ratio control input can be obtained by equating the
e-dynamics in (3) with the desired controlled dynamics e
0
0c01e; _= The estimation dynamics, and consequently the PI-controlled con-
verter, is stable if the linear dynamics "_ = 0 01 G (s)" are stable
= [ +( 0 0
0h 0  o 0 c e . Unfortunately, this con-
1 1 1
)] [6]. Since G (s) = (0s + z )=(s + z ), and recalling that s = d=dt, the
e a
namely, d
trol function is not practical because the modeling error signal  t  () system "_ = 0 01 G (s)" is equivalent to the following second-order
a

( ( ) ( ) ( ))
 y t ; q t ; d t is not available for feedback. Our idea is to use an
e a

observer to get an estimate  of the signal  t . In this way, the equiv- () differential equation:
alent computed duty ratio becomes  + ( z 0 )_" +
e " e z" = 0:
d = 0h
01 0 + ( 01 0  01)e o c : (4) Hence, to guarantee the stability of the estimation dynamics (i.e.,  !
= e_ +  01e 0 hd, the signal  can be obtained via  as t ( )=
! 1), the characteristic polynomial P2 s; e es2 e z 0 +(
By noting that  o

the following reduced-order observer (see [6]):

) +
s z must have all its roots in the left-hand side. Straightforward
root-locus analysis shows that the minimum allowable estimation time
_ =  01( 0 ) =  01(_e +  01e + hd 0 )
 (5) constant is e; min = z 01 . This means that the controlled converter
e e o
becomes unstable if e < e; min . Notice that e; min depends inversely
where e > 0 is the estimation time-constant. By introducing the vari- 0
on z , such that the smaller the RHS zero z > , the most limited the
=
able w e  0 e and using (4), the observer (5) can be implemented rate of modeling error estimation, and, consequently, the poorer the
as performance of the voltage PI controller.
On the other hand, it has been shown that a second-order system be-
_ =  01e
w c 09 10
haves much better for a damping factor  of about : : [7]. Since.
01
 =  (w + e): (6) (8) determines strongly the dynamics of the controlled converter, e; 01op
e
can be seen as the maximum convergence rate of the output p voltage
It is not hard to see that the resulting feedback control (4)(6) is to the desired value. This corresponds to e; op = (3 + 2 2) e; min .
the classical PI control d 0Kc e I01 0t e  d with the
= ( + () ) In this way, we conclude that the smaller the z -value, the smaller the
fc ; e g-parameterization maximum convergence rate. We believe that this simple analysis, al-

= 0 h01 (0 01 +  01 +  01)

though restricted to the analysis of the estimation error (8), provides
Kc o c e some insight into the interaction of the RHS zero and the speed of con-
I =   (0 01 +  01 +  01):
c e o c e (7) vergence. This analysis allows us to extract the following easy-to-use
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMSI: FUNDAMENTAL THEORY AND APPLICATIONS, VOL. 48, NO. 1, JANUARY 2001 105

Fig. 3. Time evolution of the output voltage for (a)  = 0:2 s, (b)  = 0:095 0
Fig. 4. Time evolution of the output voltage under a 20% step change in the
s, and (c)  = 0:055 s. 0
resistance at t = 1:5 s and a 20% step change at in the line voltage at t = 3:5
s, for (a)  = 0:08 s, (b)  = 0:04 s, and (c)  = 0:03 s.

tuning guidelines to choose the PI control gain Kc and integral time I

via the fc ; e g-parameterization in (7).
stressed that these parameter values were chosen for illustration pur-
poses only. The control design method of this paper can be applied
Step 0: To introduce damping, choose the current gain according equally well for other parameter and switching-frequency values.
to a suitable criterion (see [2]and [3], for instance). A current feedback, with overall gain : 0 005 A01 , was used to en-
Step 1: To obtain smooth convergence with acceptable estima- hance the damping properties of the circuit in accordance to the criteria
tion error convergence, overestimate the high-frequency gain h in [2]. The PI control parameters for voltage control were set according
by about 25%50%. =
to the tuning guidelines described above. Namely, a) c  o . b) Over-
Step 2: To minimize proportional control efforts, choose c 20% ; this is, h = 32726V1 s01 .
around the estimated time constant  o , so that Kc  0h01  0 1 estimate the high-frequency gain by
and I   o .
e
c) It can be shown that  e; min = 0 0174
: s, and  e; op = 0 101
: s. Set
e around  e; op = 0 11
: s.
Step 3: To optimize the convergence of the estimation error dy-
namics, choose e of about e; op .
( )
We recall that the function  y; q; d is strictly unknown, since
it contains all the parametric uncertainties and all-pass filters of the
Step 4: Compute the classical PI control gain Kc and integral time
I via (7).
=
system. However, at nominal conditions where h h, this function is

These tuning guidelines can be used as a departing point for practical  (y; q; d) = 01a1 e 0 0:017v + q 0 27272:7
02s d:
s + 57:47
r
tuning of the voltage PI control loop in power converters with an RHS
zero. That is, the unknown signal  (t) satisfies the differential relationship

III. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE _ + 57:47 = 01a1 e_ + q_ + 54545:4 d:_

Numerical and experimental simulations on a 180 W, 200 kHz boost
converter were carried out to illustrate both the tuning rules and the
instability phenomena induced by the presence of the RHS zero. The
entire converter control, including the PWM device, is implemented on
the dSPACE Data Acquisition System supported by a PC-Pentium (see
Fig. 1).
The nominal parameters are R = 10
Notice that the dynamics of the modeling error signal  (t) depends on
the dynamics of the control input d(t): This evidences the feedback
unstabilizing nature of the RHS zero. In this way, the idea of the ob-
server (6) is to approximate, via linear filtering, the dynamics of  (t)
and counteract it via the feedback function (4).

,C = 220
F andL = A. Numerical Simulations
43 5
: mH. The resistance may have variations of about 630%. More-
over, E= 15 V610%. The converter is operated in the range 25 
Numerical simulations were carried out using SIMNON [8]. The ini-
tial conditions V = 15 V and I =0
Vr  35 = 05 = (10 ) : 2 03 s,
= 2 2 10 A were considered. Fig. 2 shows

= 57 47
V. For D : , o D 2 R=L
: s01 and the high-frequency gain h : V 1 s01 .
= 27272 7 the time evolution of the output voltage for overdamped (e = 0 06
: s),
z
0
Notice that z   o , so that the RHS zero has strong effects on the
underdamped (e = 0 0175
: s) and unstable (e = 0 0163
: s) cases with
1

performance of the controlled converter [7]. The quality factor of the

Vr = 30 V. This illustrates that instabilities in controlled power con-
verters are also due to the presence of the RHS zero. We then evaluated
uncontrolled circuit is Q = R(1 0 D) C=L = 0:35. It should be the performance of the stable PI control at different operating points;
106 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMSI: FUNDAMENTAL THEORY AND APPLICATIONS, VOL. 48, NO. 1, JANUARY 2001

Fig. 5. Experimental time evolution of the output voltage for (a)  = 0:06 s, Fig. 6. Experimental time evolution of the output voltage for (a)  = 0:12 s,
(b)  = 0:03 s, and (c)  = 0:023 s. (b)  = 0:09 s, and (c)  = 0:07 s.

namely, Vr = 27:5 Vand Vr = 32:5 V. Fig. 3 shows the time evolution

integral action provides some insight into PI control tuning and regu-
of the output voltage for e   e; op , e 
latio performance (achievable bandwidth) limitations. It turns out that
=  e; op , and e <  e; op . As the limitations imposed by the RHS are of a fundamental nature and not
predicted, convergence to the set point is faster as e is smaller. More- a consequence of a particular design criterion for the current gain.
over, the transient behavior due to initial conditions is oscillatory for
e much smaller than  e; op .
REFERENCES
To evaluate the performance of the controller under unknown sudden
variations of the converter parameters, the following disturbances were [1] M. H. Rashid, Power Electronics: Circuits, Devices and Applica-
used: The resistance was changed from 10
to 8
at t = 1:5 s, and the tions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993.
line voltage was changed from 15 to 1 V at t = 3:5 s. Fig. 4 shows the
[2] J. Leyva-Ramos and J. A. Morales-Saldaa, A design criteria for the

time evolution of the output voltage for e   e; op , e 

=  e; op , and
e 
=  e; min . The unstable behavior in the third case is due to the fact
that the step change in resistance moves the RHS zero from z = 57:47
s01 to z = 45:97 s01 , thus reducing the stability margin [7] (i.e., it
moves e; min from 0.0174 s to 0.0218 s) of the controlled converter.
B. Experimental Results
First, we illustrate the stability/instability predicted by e; min . To
this end, we set the PI control parameters as in numerical simulations.
The behavior of the output voltage is shown in Fig. 5. To underscore
the instability of the response, a step change from 27:5 to 32:5 V in
the voltage reference Vr was set at t = 2:5 s. Although the unstable
behavior appears when e is about 0:023 s, which is larger than the es-
timated boundary e; min = 0:0174 s, these experimental simulations
current gain in current-programed regulators, IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec-
tron., vol. 14, pp. 568573, Sept 1998.
[3] R. D. Middlebrook, Topics in multiple-loop regulators and cur-
rent-mode programming, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. PE-2, pp.
109124, April 1987.
[4] M. Morari and E. Zafiriou, Robust Process Control. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
[5] M. Kristic, I. Kanellakopoulus, and P. V. Kokotovic, Nonlinear design
of adaptive controllers for linear systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
vol. 39, pp. 738752, April 1992.
[6] J. J. Alvarez-Ramirez, Adaptive control of feedback linearizable sys-
tems: A modeling error compensation approach, Int. J. Robust Non-
linear Control, vol. 9, pp. 361377, May 1999.
[7] G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, and A. Emami-Naemi, Feedback Control of
Dynamic Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.
[8] H. Elmquist, K. J. Astrm, T. Schnthal, and B. Wittenmark, Simnon:
Users Guide for MS-DOS Computers. Gteburg, Sweden: SSPA Sys-
tems, 1993.

agree with the numerical simulations. The mismatch may be due to un-
modeled parasitic resistances and realistic switching devices. Finally,
Fig. 6 shows the output-voltage behavior for the PI settings as in Fig. 3.
As predicted, the convergence to the set point is faster as e is smaller.

IV. CONCLUSIONS
We presented some stability/instability results of PI control for the
outer voltage loop in dcdc power converters. The analysis of the ef-
fects of the RHS zero on certain estimation dynamics related to the