You are on page 1of 6


ISSN 1392 – 1215 2012. No. 2(118)

T 190 ─────────────────────

Power Factor Correction based on Fuzzy Logic Controller with Fixed
Switching Frequency
A. Kessal, L. Rahmani, M. Mostefai
Laboratoire d’Automatique (LAS), Université Ferhat Abbas, Faculté de Technologie, Département d’électrotechnique,
Sétif, : +213790721151, e-mail:
J. Gaubert
Laboratoire d’Automatique et d’Informatique Industrielle (LAII), ESIP, Université de Poitiers,

Introduction multiplications), load disturbance, etc [7]. Hysteresis
current controller (bang-bang hysteresis (BBH) technique)
Single-phase power factor correction (PFC) circuits has an advantage in coping with the time varying
provide rectification of the line voltage to a regulated dc nonlinearity of switches in PFC pre-regulator, and it does
voltage while shaping the input current to be a sinusoid not require an accurate mathematical model of the PFC
and in phase with the line voltage [1]. Often, the PFC acts pre-regulator when the controller is being designed [8].
as a pre-regulator to a dc–dc converter that may be used to Also this technique has an advantage of yielding
provide additional regulation and ohmic isolation [2]. Due instantaneous current control, which results in very fast
to adoption of IEC 1000-3-2 as the EN61000-3-2 norm in response and increased switch reliability. However, it has a
Europe and the formulation of the IEEE 519 [3] in USA, serious disadvantage in that the switching frequency of the
these circuits are increasingly being used in the front-end boost switch fsw is not constant and varies in a wide range
of electronic equipments. Among the several possible during each half cycle of the ac input voltage [9]. The
topologies[2], the boost PFC shown in Fig. 1 is most switching frequency is also sensitive to circuit component
commonly used. The control objectives are to track the values, design parameters and difficult for EMI filter
inductor current to a rectified Sinusoid (the line current is design. The novel feature of the proposed method resides
sinusoidal and in phase with the line voltage) and to in the fact that unity power factor and nearly sinusoidal
regulate the average output voltage to desired magnitude input current are obtained at constant switching
with fast response to the load variation [4]. frequencies [10]. Moreover, the method exhibits an
Recent research has been directed at applying nonlinear instantaneous control of current, which results in very fast
control principles to the dynamic control of converters. response and increased switch reliability.
The system is controlled by fuzzy control algorithm, in This paper presents a systematic design, digital
which a set of linguistic rules written in accordance to implementation and experimental comparison, in first a PI
experience and intuitive reasoning. However, if the control and fuzzy logic controllers with a 100Hz notch filter for a
methodology is directly applied to classical ac-dc voltage loop of the regulated dc voltage, then the standard
converters with APFC [5], it might impose considerable hysteresis controller and redesign with some modifications
computation time to deal with the fast-varying current for improved performance in the current loop. All these
loop. Fuzzy logic control has been investigated for controllers are verified by detailed MATLAB/Simulink
applications such as motor drives and dc-dc converters [6]. based simulations through the use of a continuous time
Objectives include tight output voltage regulation, high plant model and a discrete time controller. Design is
rejection of reference output voltage variations and load comprehensive in the sense that it accounts for sampling
transients. The improvement in the transient response of effects, computation delays, hardware filtering for
the controller voltage loop decreases the quality of the antialiasing and software filtering for measurement noise
input current (High THD). On the other hand, PI controller reduction. Real-time implementation is done on an
design in current loop requires an accurate mathematical experimental test bench using the dSPACE DS1104
model of the plant and it failed to perform satisfactorily controller board. These controllers are experimentally
under parameter variation, nonlinearity (two compared for steady-state performance and transient

The Table 1. O159 Table 2. the voltage reference is pre-compensated to avoid a steady state voltage error at nominal operation. the dc-bus voltage u0 is sensed and compared with a reference value ∗ .5mH Fig. The fuzzy logic controller unlike conventional controllers does not require a NM NB NB NB NM NS ZE PS mathematical model of the system that should be NS NB NB NM NS ZE PS PM controlled. apparatus and compared with a reference value ∗ . 1 is modeled as a first order system obtained error ( ) = ∗ ( ) − ( ) and its incremental variation ( ) = ( ) − ( − 1) at the kth sampling ∗ = ∗ = . Where ρ and σ are constants used to margin gain (≈45°) and bandwidth in the 5Hz to 20Hz normalize the error and the change of error. The fuzzy logic 68 . As shown in Fig. (2) 1+ 1 + 0. APFC pre-regulator Voltage-loop controller controller consists of three basic blocks: Fuzzification. PI-Controller for APFC Output Capacity C=940µF is the transfer function of the PI-Controller. range. Fig. Inference Mechanism and Defuzzification PI-Controller. DC-Bus reference output voltage U*0=160V Input current ripple ≤2. The fuzzy controller PS NM NS ZE PS PM PB PB designer must clarify how the information is processed PM NS ZE PS PM PB PB PB (control strategy and decision). The output is 4 1+ 1+ 2 the variation magnitude of reference current ∗ . Since the outer loop has a finite dc gain. Fig. 3. a comprehending of the system and (Cεv) ZE NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB the control requirements is necessary. The bandwidth is intentionally kept very low since the compensator gain at 100Hz effectively determines the third harmonic to be expected in the input current. the Desired switching frequency fswd=20kHz output of the controller ∗ multiplied by |sin | obtained Output power P0=121W from PLL stage with sensing of the input voltage is the Magnitude of supply voltage USM=150V instantaneous reference current command iref. = ∗ : are the PI parameters.0160 and Ti=0.response over the entire range of input and load conditions for which the system is designed. 1. Design specification and circuit parameters obtained error is used as input for the PI controller. and information flows out PB ZE PS PM PB PB PB PB of the system (solution/output variable). 2. With fCV=10Hz. Fuzzy control rules (εv) The circuit is designed with the following NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB specification (Table 1). Ki=2. fCV is the dc-bus voltage is scaled and is sampled by the digital voltage closed loop crossover frequency. However. NB NB NB NB NB NM NS ZE Fuzzy Logic-Controller. the closed loop transfer function with the design example given in table 1 is 16 Fig. 3. The dc- bus voltage is controlled by adjusting the magnitude of Pole and gain are chosen to obtain a sufficient phase reference current ∗ . The The system in Fig. shows the block diagram of the proposed fuzzy logic control scheme of the boost rectifier with APFC.0494. The = . (1) instant are used as inputs of fuzzy controller. 2. Fuzzy logic-Controller for APFC ∗ = = .5% Output voltage ripple ≤2% Load resistance R=212Ω Input Inductance L=22.

∗ – the interrupter reference voltage. From Fig. (15) For the ideal PFC. (12) − ∗ ∗ ( − ) = . Switching frequency From (11) and (13). With 0. 5 by considering the output the MSF is about 5 kHz.Current-loop controller ∗ (10) − = . A more realistic write: simulation with L=0. informs us about the value of L to choose to limit the where β=2ΔI is band hysteresis. 6 and (11).1. (11) actual current oscillates in fixed band hysteresis (FBH) as shown in Fig. if β is constant and the time t varies. 4. To investigate the control characteristics of a PFC. (7) − reference current . This relatively low frequency voltage constant (U0) over a switching period we can shows well the control by hysteresis. 5. then the error current ( ) varied as triangular form as shown in Fig. = . (5) Fig. 6. (8) then the switching frequency also varies. Hysteresis current control with constant switching 1 1 frequency. 5. = ( − ). according (15) (9) ( − ref )( − + ref ) − = . (4) 2 If > . In the second way.1H. the equation (9) becomes 69 . In this scheme. Variation of switching frequency with L If < . the algorithm is given as: β Upper band iupper =IrefM sin(ωt) +ΔI=IrefM sin(ωt) +( ). (3) 2 Lower band( lower ) = refM sin( ) − ΔI = β = sin( ) + . From Fig. (6) The charts of ( ) = ( ) of parameter ΔI for FBH. (13) Fig. oscillates in variable band hysteresis (VBH).4. Current error and the switch H voltage Conventional Hysteresis Current Control. (15) gives rectifier sinusoidal shape . Fig. = ∗ . we assume to the reference where is the desired switching frequency. 4 and Fig. become and : = ∗ . = 0. From (14). (14) where = |sin ( )| . To get + constant. = 1. then = . then = 0 . The PFC circuit analyzed here has a feedback loop such that the switching mode is determined by comparison From (9) and (10) of the actual current and sinusoidal reference current supplied form voltage loop controller in both ways the = − ∗ . From (11). excursion in frequency to a compatible value. 6. the variation of maximal switching frequency (MSF) with the inductance L of ΔI parameter for FBH is evaluated in Fig. the hysteresis band has to be dynamically From Fig. = |sin ( )|. if we assume the quantity − ∗ constant during the switching period.0225H and thus an MSF of 20 kHz would allow faster variations of current around his = ( − ). the actual current where = − – the error current in hysteresis band. = = . switching frequency is ( − ref )( − + ref ) = . is given changes.

997. 7. the input current is still sinusoidal and VBH.01% even with the limited bandwidth that is allowed by the digital implementation. 9. Output voltage. 9. Steady state waveforms: a) with FBH. current are shown in Fig. As previously stated. Nevertheless. After a short transient. From these figures. The settling voltage. 7 illustrate dc-bus becomes stable. PF=0. It is important to note improvement in the transient behaviors. the resistance is switched back to 212 Ω. When the system has been entered into steady state. 8. Fig. Further research will be dedicated into the very close to sine wave and in phase with the power source optimization of the fuzzy rules. respectively at nominal load and nominal line in phase with the input voltage during transient. b) using VBH Transient performance. step load changes are effected by connecting (or disconnecting) parallel load. unchanged. a) a) b) Fig. The waveforms of the Fig. in order to have further voltage. 10. U0* is returned to 160V again. It can be voltage.a very simple control law with constant switching Another test on large-signal change of U0* has been frequency allowing the improvement of characteristics of performed. input current (load changes) is large step change in the load R from 212Ω to 312Ω with constant reference output voltage. The transient output voltage and the input audible noise and EME related problems. THD of the input current is match better than with the fixed band hysteresis control. the THD is less than 4%. U0* is changed from 160V to 192V with R hysteresis current controller in terms of switching loss. the steady-state error is 1V. line current and his associated time is about 400ms for the output voltage to attain the old spectrum. it can be seen that the results seen from the above that the system is stable during the obtained with the proposed Fuzzy_Hysteresis control are large-signal change in the reference output voltage and the much better than the international norms. for the Fuzzy_Hysteresis control with FBH and value. Simulated waveforms: a) using FBH. The reference current amplitude is limited to 3. the load factor operation is successfully achieved. The output voltage reached to the new value after 400ms. It voltage is maintained close to its reference value with a can be observed from these results that the unity power good approximation and stability. 70 . b) with VBH b) Fig. When the system Steady-state performance. 11 show experimental results for PI and fuzzy input current and the output voltage during transient period logic controller respectively of a step response against the are shown in Fig.5A in the control for the Fuzzy and PI control designs. Line current is output load. there Fig. the Fuzzy_Hysteresis control with variable band hysteresis has THD number about 2. that at nominal line and load condition. it can be Simulation and experimental results observed that the input current is maintained in sinusoidal waveform during the transient period. On the other hand. line voltage. the dc-bus disturbance load under the unity power factor operation. With the variable band hysteresis control. Afterwards.

T. a good rejection of impact load disturbance. The presented results indicate that the VBH is much better than the classical one in steady and transient states (dc-bus voltage a) error =1V. after a short transient. Hui S. The proposed variable band hysteresis controller. Notice that. Jee–Woo L. References 1. Moghani S. 10.. Henry S. – No. Output voltage. 3. THD of line currents = 2. Implementation of a Single Input Fuzzy Controller for a High Power Factor Boost Converter //. while input currents drawn from the power supply should be sinusoidal and in phase with respective phase voltages to satisfy the unity power factor (UPF) operation of the converter. 2004. Masashi O.reactive power is approximately equal to zero (0. Hirofumi M. 6(94). – Kaunas: Technologija. 2009. 1999. 7th Africon conference in Africa. Gelezevicius A. from these figures that the transient response Fig. fuzzy logic controller gives excellent performance in transient state. 356–361. An AC/DC Converter with High Power Factor // IEEE Transaction on Industrial Electronics. – No. b) Fuzzy Industrial Electronics. is synthesized by analyzing the instantaneous inductance current. Eugene P. Near unit power factor can be achieved..10%). and a good robustness. Bong–Hwan K. 2003. Khoshooei A. 12. Technology innovation. 50. – No. R.3VAR) and the DPF=1 (DPF displacement power factor) even in this transient state. 69–72. using conventional PI controller or fuzzy logic controller in the dc-bus voltage control loop. Gaborone. after a short transient. the dc-bus voltage is maintained close to their new reference The main goal of the control system is to maintain the values. 1035– 1037. Y. Development of a Fuzzy Logic Controller for Boost Rectifier with Active Power Factor Correction // IEEE. 5. – Vol. – P. dc-bus voltage at the required level. Implementation of the Control Algorithm of the Variable Structure Controller in the a) Electromechanical Servo System // Electronics and Electrical 71 . Transient reference changes: a) PI. – P. 46. 1999. C. 4. – P. – P.. 15–18. 11. Lowering of EMI Noise in Boost Type PFC by the use of Spread Spectrum // Electronics and Electrical Engineering. 2. the dc-bus voltage is maintained close to their reference values. b) Fuzzy It is clear. 5. Notice that.. – IEEE. – P. Stepins D. 6.. The proposed VBH was simulated and implemented in real-time for both conventional PI and fuzzy logic controller. – Vol. different to the conventional fixed band hysteresis controller. Moreover. Fig. 12 show experimental results for PI and fuzzy logic controller respectively of a step response against the Conclusions step change of U0*. Botswana. Pikulins D. Transient load changes: a) PI. W. 2... H. Jankovskis J. b) Fig. Sulcius V. input current (reference changes) in the dc-bus voltage is faster with the fuzzy control scheme.. 149– 154. A Power–Factor Controller for b) Single Phase PWM Rectifier // IEEE Transaction on Fig.

2 (in English.. Rahmani L. 2(118). Manuel A. Engineering. Siekiant sumažinti harmoninius įėjimo srovės iškraipymus. 7(71). Experimental Comparison of Digital Implementation of 7. R. – Vol. To reduce the total harmonic distortion of the input current to give it a sinusoidal shape. H. A Unity Power Factor Single–Phase PFC Controllers // IEEE Transaction on Correction Pre–regulator With Fast Dynamic Response Based Industrial Electronics. Ill. – No. Arturo F. All these controllers have been verified via simulation in Simulink and experimental test. 2012. bibl. – Nr. Mostefai. 10. – en Reduced Redundant Power Processing Principle // IEEE Vol. J. 2012. Transaction on Industrial Electronics. lent. Development of Adaptative Power Electronics. Received 2011 04 02 Accepted after revision 2011 09 08 A. Belhouchet N. Kishore K. This paper presents an application of different methods to regulate the output voltage of AC-DC converter associated with power factor corrector (PFC). – P. A. Mostefai. Galios koeficiento korekcija. – Kaunas: Technologija. – P. – P. pagrįsta neraiškiosios logikos valdikliu esant fiksuotam perjungimo dažniui // Elektronika ir elektrotechnika. 9. 67–72.. Gaubert. kintamų histerezės juostų kontrolė srovės kilpoje sukelia nedaug harmoninių iškraipymų. the variable hysteresis band control in the current loop gives a low THD of the input current compared to classical bands control. Kessal. a classical PI regulator was used. Pristatomas skirtingų metodų taikymas AC-DC konverterio su galios koeficiento reguliatoriumi išėjimo įtampai reguliuoti. abstracts in English and Lithuanian). 37. 23. J. 1. – No. 72 . – P. Chi K.). – P. Power Factor Correction based on Fuzzy Logic Controller with Fixed Switching Frequency // Electronics and Electrical Engineering. – No. – No. 10. 2008. Martin K. 2. Martin H. the both regulators were inserted in the voltage loop. R. buvo naudojama histerezės juostų kontrolė.. Vishnu M... The fuzzy logic inference based controller can achieve better dynamic response than its PI counterpart under large load disturbance and plant uncertainties. L. 2008. bibl. Be to.. C. Aman B. 2 (anglų kalba. tabl. Hysteresis–band Current Control of PWM Three–Phase AC 8. – Vol. C. 2006. 55. Kessal.. – Vol. and another based on fuzzy logic was built. Visi šie valdikliai buvo patikrinti „Simulink“ modeliavimu ir eksperimentiškai. 2(118). M. 2. 12. Furthermore. 665–673. palyginti su klasikine juostų kontrole. Kintamos juostos histerezės rezultatai būna geresni nei kitų juostų. L. T. 2009. Klasikinis PI ir neraiškiosios logikos reguliatoriai buvo panaudoti įtampos kilpoje. L. 2008. Gaubert. – Kaunas: Technologija. 67–72. – P. Rahmani. – Taylor & Francis. Diego G. hysteresis bands control were used. Practical Chopper with Constant Switching Frequency // Electric Design And Evaluation of A 1 KW PFC Power Supply Based Power Components and systems.. 55. J. 51–54. – Kaunas: Technologija.. 12. Neraiškiosios logikos valdiklis gali pasiekti geresnes dinamines charakteristikas nei PI valdiklis esant dideliems trikdžiams ir jėgainės neapibrėžtumams. Amit K. 67–78. M. Rahmani. 635–641. the variable band hysteresis give better results compared to other bands. – No. L. 583–598. Il. – P. santraukos anglų ir lietuvių k. on a Low–Cost Microcontroller // IEEE Transaction on 10.