IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO.
4, APRIL 2014
Subharmonic Stability Limits for the Buck Converter
With Ripple-Based Constant On-Time Control and
Feedback Filter
Chung-Chieh Fang and Richard Redl, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—A general closed-form subharmonic stability condi-
tion is derived for the buck converter with ripple-based constant
on-time control and a feedback filter. The turn-on delay is included
in the analysis. Three types of filters are considered: low-pass fil-
ter (LPF), phase-boost filter (PBF), and inductor current feedback
(ICF) which changes the feedback loop frequency response like a
filter. With the LPF, the stability region is reduced. With the PBF
or ICF, the stability region is enlarged. Stability conditions are
determined both for the case of a single output capacitor and for
the case of two parallel-connected output capacitors having widely
different time constants. The past research results related to the
feedback filters become special cases. All theoretical predictions
are verified by experiments.
Index Terms—DC–DC power conversion, stability condition,
subharmonic oscillation, switching delay.
I. INTRODUCTION
IPPLE-BASED control is commonly used to reduce the
R cost and to improve the transient response of the buck
converter. The minor disadvantages of the ripple-based control
are its susceptibility to jitter (due to the combination of small
pulse-width-modulator ramp and noise pickup from the environ-
ment) and the inclination of subharmonic, or fast-scale, insta-
bility [1]. The traditional averaging analysis cannot predict the
subharmonic instability [1], although it may be predicted by the
sampled data [2], harmonic balance [2], [3], or describing func-
tion [4] analyses. To ensure stability, an output capacitor with
a large time constant is required. Such a capacitor tends to be
bulky; therefore, it is often combined with a small time constant
and small-size multilayer ceramic capacitor [5]. The additional
capacitor, however, introduces a pole, which degrades the stabil-
ity. To improve the stability and also to reduce the noise pickup,
a filter can be added in the feedback loop.
This paper focuses on the subharmonic stability limits of the
ripple-based constant-on-time control (COTC) with a feedback
Manuscript received December 13, 2012; revised February 11, 2013, April 6,
2013, and June 14, 2013; accepted June 20, 2013. Date of current version Octo-
ber 15, 2013. Recommended for publication by Associate Editor M. Ferdowsi.
C.-C. Fang is with Sunplus Technology, Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan
(e-mail: fangcc3@yahoo.com).
R. Redl is with Redl Consulting, CH-1726 Farvagny-le-Petit, Switzerland
(e-mail: richardredl@gmail.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPEL.2013.2271565
0885-8993 © 2013 IEEE
2135
filter. The reason why COTC was selected as the subject of
investigation is that it is one of the most popular types of control
for low-power power-management applications due to its sim-
plicity, the possibility of stabilizing the frequency in the contin-
uous conduction mode, and the inherent frequency slowdown at
light loads in the discontinuous conduction mode. Many semi-
conductor companies offer control ICs for ripple-based COTC
of the buck converter.
In this paper, three feedback filters are considered. A phase-
boost filter (PBF) boosts the phase of the loop gain [1]. A low-
pass filter (LPF) reduces the noise pickup [6]. An inductor cur-
rent feedback (ICF) [7] works like a filter because it introduces
a zero which may cancel an unwanted pole, such as in the
composite-capacitor case. However, if the filter is not properly
designed, subharmonic instability may still occur [1], [6]. In
this paper, subharmonic stability conditions are derived for the
COTC buck converter with either the PBF, LPF, or ICF. The LPF
reduces the noise pickup but it has a destabilizing effect because
an additional pole is introduced. The PBF or ICF introduces an
additional zero, and thus, it has a stabilizing effect. Throughout
this paper, the turn-on delay is considered.
This paper is organized as follows. The stability conditions
of the buck converter with COTC and without a feedback filter
are reviewed in Section II. The general stability condition of the
buck converter with a feedback filter is presented in Section III.
Some special cases of PBF and LPF are presented in Sections IV
and V, respectively. Similar analysis is applied in Section VI to
the composite-capacitor case with the PBF or ICF. Conclusions
are collected in Section VII.
II. REVIEW OF SOME STABILITY CONDITIONS
A brief review based on [3] and [8] is given to make this
paper self-contained. In a linear system with a loop gain T (s),
the Nyquist plot T (jω) can predict the stability. However, it
cannot predict the fast-scale stability of the converter with a
ripple-based control because it is based on the averaged model
which removes the switching ripple from the state variable [1].
A different form of stability condition is required.
Let the nominal switching period be T , the duty ratio be D,
and the on-time be Ton = DT . Denote the switching frequency
as fs = 1/T , and let ωs := 2πfs . Assume there is a turn-on
delay  := T δ < T (1 − D). Let T  (s) = e−s T (s) be the loop
gain for the converter with turn-on delay. Based on [8, eq. (14)]
but with a correction of sign inverse, the stability condition to
2136 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 4, APRIL 2014

TABLE I
F-TRANSFORM OF LOOP GAIN T (s)WITH POLE ω p AND/OR ZERO ω z [8]

Fig. 2. COTC buck converter with a PBF (and an optional R i iL ramp).

Define S := fs F[Vm T (s)] = fs F[vs Gc (s)Gp (s)], which is a

function of the converter parameters, e.g., Ton and vs . The plot
of S against a converter parameter is called the S-plot (see [8,
Table 5]). For S < ma , the converter is stable.
Using (3) and (4), the stability condition (8) becomes
S := KVm D(Ton /2 − Rc C + )/2 < ma . (9)
Fig. 1. COTC buck converter without a feedback filter. Without the ramp (ma = 0), (9) leads to
Ton /2 = DT /2 < Rc C −  (10)
avoid subharmonic oscillation is
∞     agreed with the observation in [9, eq. (19)] and [10]. Increasing
 1 − e−j n π D jnωs
F[T (s)] := T 
<1 (1) the turn-on delay shrinks the stability region.
n =−∞
2(−1)n 2 Remarks: First, (10) is a concise but approximate condition
for ωq  ωs . As ωq increases, the stability region enlarges [3].
where an F-transform is introduced and defined as in (1). Based Therefore, (10) is a sufficient condition for stability. Second,
on [8, Tables 2, 3, and 9], the F-transforms of some typical loop letting D = 1 in (10), a conservative (valid for all D) stability
gains are shown in Table I, where limit is T /2 < Rc C −  (or equivalently, πz(1 + 2δ) < 1) [11].
α(D, p) = πe2π pδ (1 − e2π pD )csch(2πp) (2) Third, from [3, Fig. 8], a more accurate stability limit for q :=
ωq /ωs < 0.1 (generally true) is
α0 (D) = −πD (3)
Ton /2 < Rc C −  + qT (11)
α1 (D) = π 2 D2 − 2πδα0 (D) = π 2 D(D + 2δ) (4)
where, compared with (10), an additional term qT is added.
c(D, p) := α(D, p) − α0 (D) + α1 (D)p. (5)
III. WITH A FEEDBACK FILTER: GENERAL CASE
Next, consider a COTC buck converter (see Fig. 1), where vs
is the source voltage, vd is the diode voltage, vo is the output Consider a first-order feedback filter with a dc gain g
voltage, vc is the control voltage, y is a feedback signal, and h is g(1 + s/ω1 )
a stabilizing ramp. Let the equivalent series resistance (ESR) be Gc (s) = . (12)
1 + s/ωp
Rc . Let ρ = R/(R + Rc ). For Rc = 0, ρ = 1. Denote the ramp
slope as ma and the ramp amplitude as Vm = ma T . The filter pole ωp and zero ω1 can be used to cancel unwanted
In COTC, the switch is turned ON for a fixed duration Ton power stage zero and pole. Like (7), T (s) is approximately
and then turned OFF. It is turned ON again if y(t) ≤ h(t). Let  
K(1 + s/ωz ) g(1 + s/ω1 ) gK ζ ωs η
ωq := ρ/RC + ρRc /L  ωs and ωz = 1/Rc C. From [3], the · = + 2 +
s2 1 + s/ωp ωs s s s + ωp
high-frequency power stage vd -to-vo transfer function is
where ζ = 1/z + 1/z1 − 1/p, η = (1 − p/z)(1/p − 1/z1 ),
ρ(1 + s/ωz ) ρ(1 + s/ωz ) and z1 = ω1 /ωs . Based on Table I, the stability condition is
Gp (s) ≈ ≈ . (6)
LCs(s + ωq ) LCs2
gKVm
S := (ζα0 (D) + α1 (D) + ηα(D, p)) < ma . (13)
From Fig. 1, y = vo − vc and the “compensator (filter)” is sim- 2πωs
ply Gc (s) = y(s)/vo (s) = 1. Let K = vs ρ/Vm LC. Then This is a general condition for the filter (12). The special cases
vs Gp (s)Gc (s) K(1 + s/ωz ) of PBF and LPF are considered next.
T (s) = ≈ . (7)
Vm s2
IV. WITH A PBF: SPECIAL CASE p = z
As a case C7 in Table I, the stability condition (1) becomes
Consider a buck converter with a PBF shown in Fig. 2, where
K(α0 (D)/z + α1 (D))/ωs2 < 1. (8) vfb is the feedback voltage. The PBF has a transfer function
FANG AND REDL: SUBHARMONIC STABILITY LIMITS FOR THE BUCK CONVERTER 2137

(12) with g = R2 /(R1 + R2 ), ω1 = 1/R1 C1 , and ωp = ω1 /g. TABLE II

THREE EXPERIMENTS IN EXAMPLE 2 (TIME UNIT: μ S)
Since ω1 < ωp , the PBF has a phase boost (lead).
Let C1 = Rc C/R1 g [1]; then, ωp = ωz and p = z. Three
different views lead to the same stability condition.

A. View One: Special Case of General Condition (13)

For p = z, the general stability condition (13) becomes
S := gKVm D(Ton /2 − R1 C1 + )/2 < ma . (14)
Without the ramp (ma = 0), the stability condition is
Ton /2 < R1 C1 − . (15)
Since C1 = Rc C/R1 g, (15) becomes
Ton /2 < Rc C/g − . (16)
Compared with (10), adding the PBF enlarges the stability re-
gion because g < 1. The time constant Rc C is increased by
1/g = 1 + R1 /R2 (instead of the typo 1 + R2 /R1 reported
in [1]). Adding the PBF also allows a smaller time constant
Rc C to be used without losing stability as long as g is small
enough to satisfy (16). Note that (16) is equivalent to (15) if
p = z. These two conditions give different perspectives: (16) Fig. 3. Converter is unstable without a PBF, T o n = 0.42 μs.
shows how to increase the time constant Rc C (of the output
capacitor) by a factor 1/g, and (15) shows the minimum time
constant R1 C1 (of PBF). Like (11), accuracy of (15) or (16) is
improved by adding an additional term qT .
A suggested design procedure is as follows. First, choose
proper C to meet the ripple size requirement on the output
voltage vo . If the time constant Rc C is large enough to meet
(10), the PBF is not needed. Otherwise, a PBF may be added to
avoid the instability. Second, choose proper R1 and R2 to meet
(16). Third, choose C1 = Rc C/R1 g, so that p = z.
An optional inductor current ramp Ri iL may be added as
shown in Fig. 2 (or by adding Ri between w and x in Fig. 2
and moving the upper end of C1 to w [7]) to further increase the
time constant. An additional term Ri vs /Vm Ls is added to T (s).
Based on similar analysis above, the stability condition is (16)
with Rc replaced by Rc + Ri . Similar effect of the current ramp
to increase the time constant has been reported in [4] which does
not analyze the PBF or the on-time delay. Fig. 4. Converter is stable with a PBF, T o n = 0.42 μs.
Example 1: (Agreed with the simulation reported in [1].)
Consider a buck converter [1] with vs = 5 V, T = 3 μs,  = R = 0.6 Ω, Rc = 10 mΩ, L = 2.2 μH, C = 20 μF, vc = 0.8
0, Ton = 1.2 μs, D = Ton /T = 0.4, vc = 2 V, ma = 0, R = V, and R1 = R2 = 100 Ω. The converter has quasi-constant
0.5 Ω, Rc = 20 mΩ, L = 2 μH, and C = 20 μF. Without a PBF, switching frequency with vs Ton = vo T = 4.62 V·μs [6].
the converter is unstable (see [1, Fig. 9]), agreed with the fact Three experiments are performed, summarized in Table II.
that here, Rc C = 0.4 μs < Ton /2 = 0.6 μs. The time constant First, disconnect C1 , and let vs = 11 V and Ton = 0.42 μs. Here,
Rc C needs to be at least 1.5 times larger to avoid the instability. Ton /2 > Rc C − , and the converter is unstable (see Fig. 3).
In [1], a PBF (with g = 1/4, R1 = 30 kΩ, R2 = 10 kΩ, and Second, connect a capacitor C1 ≈ Rc C/R1 g = 4 nF in parallel
C1 = 53.3 pF) is added to make the time constant four times with R1 to make a PBF. Take the parallel combination of two
larger, and the converter is stabilized (see also [1, Fig. 9]). 2.2-nF capacitors, so C1 = 2 × 2.2 = 4.4 nF. Now with a larger
Next, decrease Rc . The converter with the same PBF may be time constant R1 C1 , the converter is stabilized (see Fig. 4).
unstable. Let Rc = 5 mΩ (1/4 smaller) and C1 = 13.3 pF, for Third, with the PBF, Ton can be stretched (without losing sta-
example. Based on the sampled-data analysis [2], the poles are bility) up to 2R1 C1 − 2 = 0.68 μs (larger than the original
−1.07, 0, and 0, and the converter is indeed unstable. limit 0.4 μs without a PBF). For Ton > 0.68 μs, the converter
Example 2: (Agreed with new experiments.) Consider a is expected to be unstable. Take Ton = 0.92 μs and vs = 4.9 V,
buck converter [6] with T = 2.6 μs,  = 100 ns, ma = 0, for example, the converter is unstable (see Fig. 5).
2138 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 4, APRIL 2014

Fig. 7. Switching model for a COTC buck converter in CCM.

and C, E ∈ R1×N are constant matrices. Let I ∈ RN ×N be an

identity matrix.
Based on the sampled-data analysis or from [8, Table 8], the
stability condition for a general COTC buck converter is
Fig. 5. Converter with a PBF is unstable with large T o n = 0.92 μs. S = CeA(T −) (I − e2AT )−1 (I − e−AT o n )Bvs < ma . (17)

−9
With Ton = DT and based on Taylor series expansion [8]
x 10 ∞
8 
S=C βn (D)An T n Bvs < ma (18)
7 n =0

where the first two coefficients for the terms An T n are β0 (D) =
0

6
−D/2 and β1 (D) = D2 /4 − β0 (D)δ = D(D + 2δ)/4. When
5 |eigenvalue(A)|T is small
C1 (F)

S ≈ (CBβ0 (D) + CABT β1 (D))vs < ma . (19)

4 Stable
Given an arbitrary control scheme, once the matrices A, B, and
3 0
C are obtained, the stability condition (17) or (19) is readily
obtained. For the buck converter with the PBF (see Fig. 2)
2 Unstable ⎡ ⎤
−ρRc −ρ
0 ⎡ ⎤
1
0
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ L L ⎥ 1
iL ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ρ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ −ρ
0 ⎥ ⎢L⎥
x = ⎣ vC ⎦ , A = ⎢ ⎥, B = ⎢ ⎥
4 6 8 10 12 14 ⎢ C RC ⎥ ⎣0⎦
vs (V) v1 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ρRc ρ −ω1 ⎦ 0
Fig. 6. Contour plot of S = 0 for a buck converter with a PBF. R2 C1 R2 C1 g
and C = [ρRc , ρ, −1]. Then, CB ≈ Rc /L, CAB ≈ 1/LC −
Let S-plot (13) be a function of vs and C1 , represented as a Rc /R2 LC1 , and (19) also leads approximately to (14).
3-D plot. Taking a horizontal cross section at ma = 0 leads to The expression of α(D, p) in (2) was derived based on the
a contour plot (see Fig. 6). It shows that, for C1 = 4.4 nF, the definition of F-transform (1). It can be also derived based on the
converter is stable for vs > 7.22 V (and Ton < 0.64 μs), agreed sampled-data analysis using (17). Let T (s) = 1/(s + ωp ), A =
with the experiments above. −ωp , B = C = 1, vs = 1, and Vm = 1; then, (17) becomes
πe2π pδ (1 − e2π pD )csch(2πp) = α(D, p) < ωs .
B. View Two: ESR Zero ωz Replaced by Filter Zero ω1
V. WITH AN LPF: SPECIAL CASE WITH ω1 = ∞
Since p = z, the filter pole ωp cancels the ESR zero ωz . The
loop gain becomes gK(1 + s/ω1 )/s2 which is similar to (7) Consider a buck converter with an LPF (see Fig. 8). The LPF
but with ωz replaced by the filter zero ω1 . An unstable converter is a special case of (12) with ω1 = ∞ and ωp = 1/gR1 C1 . The
may be thus stabilized by replacing ωz with a properly chosen loop gain is gK(1 + s/ωz )/[s2 (1 + s/ωp )], belonging to case
ω1 . In (10), replacing ωz by ω1 also leads to (15). C9 . From Table I, the stability condition is
   
gKVm p 1 1
S := α1 (D) + − c(D, p) < ma . (20)
C. View Three: Independent Sampled-Data Analysis 2πωs z p z
Fig. 7 is a switching model [2], [8] for a COTC buck converter Since α1 (D) > 0 and c(D, p) ≥ 0 [3], a sufficient condition of
in a continuous conduction mode (CCM), where x ∈ RN ×1 is instability can be obtained. If ma = 0 and p ≤ z (or gR1 C1 ≥
an N -dimensional state vector, and A ∈ RN ×N , B, F ∈ RN ×1 , Rc C), the converter is unstable because S > ma = 0.
FANG AND REDL: SUBHARMONIC STABILITY LIMITS FOR THE BUCK CONVERTER 2139

Fig. 8. COTC buck converter with an LPF.

TABLE III
THREE EXPERIMENTS IN EXAMPLE 3

Fig. 10. Converter is unstable with an LPF, C 1 = 4.4 nF.

Fig. 11. COTC composite-capacitor buck converter with a PBF.

(C + C3 )/Rc CC3 > ωz = 1/Rc C, and

K2 (1 + s/ωz ) g(1 + s/ω1 )
T (s) ≈ · . (21)
s2 (1 + s/ωp ) 1 + sg/ω1
Fig. 9. Converter is stable without an LPF. Generally, R3 C3 < Rc C. To reduce the complexity of (21), two
approaches of pole-zero cancellations are proposed.
Example 3: (Agreed with the simulation reported in [6].) Con-
sider a buck converter with an LPF [6]. The converter parameters A. Using the PBF Zero ω1 to Cancel the New Pole ωp
are vs = 5 V, T = 5 μs,  = 0, Ton = 1 μs, ma = 0, R = 1 Ω, Let ω1 = ωp ; then, C1 = Rc CC3 /R1 (C + C3 ). From (21)
Rc = 20 mΩ, L = 3 μH, C = 100 μF, R1 = 1 kΩ, R2 = ∞,
and C1 = 2 nF. Here, p = z and S > 0, and the converter is K2 (1 + s/ωz ) g
T (s) ≈ · . (22)
unstable, agreed with [6, Fig. 6]. s2 1 + sg/ω1
Example 4: (Agreed with new experiments.) Consider again
Example 2. Now connect the capacitor C1 in parallel with R2 T (s) has a pole ω1 /g. Let p = ω1 /gωs = z1 /g. As a case C9 ,
(instead of R1 as in Example 2). Three experiments are made, denote the left side of (20) as S9 (K, p, z), the S-plot for (22) is
summarized in Table III. First, without an LPF by disconnecting S9 (K2 , p , z). For ωz  ωs , the contour plot of S9 (see Fig. 12)
C1 , let vs = 11.8 V and Ton = 0.39 μs. Based on (11), the shows occurrence of instability with small p or large D.
converter is stable (see Fig. 9). Second, connect a capacitor
C1 = 4.4 nF in parallel with R2 to make an LPF. Now, gR1 C1 ≥ B. Using the PBF Pole ω1 /g to Cancel the ESR Zero ωz
Rc C, and the converter is unstable (see Fig. 10). Third, to make Let ω1 = gωz ; then, C1 = Rc C/R1 g, and (21) becomes
S < ma = 0, take a smaller C1 = 100 pF, for example. The
converter is now stable (like Fig. 9). K2
T (s) ≈ · g(1 + s/ω1 ). (23)
s2 (1 + s/ωp )
VI. COMPOSITE-CAPACITOR CASE
Also as a case of C9 , the stability condition is S9 (K2 , p, z1 ) <
First, consider a buck converter with a PBF (12) shown in ma . For the same pole ωp , based on Fig. 18 of [3], a smaller
Fig. 11. The second capacitor C3 introduces a new pole ωp = zero ω1 = gωz < ωz enlarges the stability region.
2140 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 4, APRIL 2014

2 8000

0
Without PBF
With PBF
6000
1.5
4000

S-plot (V/s)
0
z1 /g

1 Stable 2000

0
0.5 0

−2000
0 Unstable
0
0 −4000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6 8 10
D vs (V)

Fig. 12. Contour plot of S = 0 for the composite-capacitor PBF case. Fig. 14. S-plots show that adding a PBF decreases v s∗ (from 4.4 to 2.73).

Fig. 13. COTC composite-capacitor buck converter with ICF.

C. Inductor Current Feedback

Next, instead of PBF, ICF is applied (see Fig. 13). The ICF,
like a filter, introduces a zero around ω1 = 1/Ri C3 . Like (21)
K2 (1 + s/ωz )
T (s) ≈ · g(1 + s/ω1 ). (24)
s2 (1 + s/ωp ) Fig. 15. Converter is stable without a PBF, v s = 5.5 V.

The S-plot is the same as (13) but with K replaced by K2 and

with different expressions of ω1 and ωp . It can show the mini-
mum Ri for stability. As a special case, if Ri = Rc C/(C + C3 ),
then ω1 = ωp , and the filter zero cancels the new pole introduced
by C3 . The stability condition is like (10) for the single-capacitor
case because the effect of additional C3 is canceled by the ICF.
Example 5: (Stabilization by PBF or ICF.) Continue from
Example 2, but use C = 470 μF and Rc = 33 mΩ. Add a ce-
ramic capacitor C3 = 50 μF (with negligible ESR R3 ) in parallel
with C. The S-plot (see Fig. 14) shows that the converter is sta-
ble for vs > 4.4 V. Let vs = 5.5 V, for example, the converter is
stable (see Fig. 15). Next, let vs = 4 V, the converter is unstable
(see Fig. 16).
The converter is then stabilized by a PBF or ICF, summa-
rized in Table IV. First, add a PBF with C1 = Rc CC3 /R1 (C +
C3 ) = 15 nF and R1 = R2 = 100 Ω. The S-plot (see Fig. 14)
shows that the converter is now stable for vs > 2.73 V. With the
PBF, the stability region enlarges. For vs = 4 V, the converter
Fig. 16. Converter is unstable without a PBF, v s = 4 V.
is now stable (see Fig. 17). Here, z1 /g = 0.55, D = 0.44, and
Fig. 12 also confirms the stability.
FANG AND REDL: SUBHARMONIC STABILITY LIMITS FOR THE BUCK CONVERTER 2141

TABLE IV
FOUR EXPERIMENTS IN EXAMPLE 5: STABILIZATION BY PBF OR ICF

Fig. 19. Converter is stable with ICF (R i = 3 mΩ), v s = 4 V.

TABLE V
STABILITY CONDITIONS FOR VARIOUS FEEDBACK SCHEMES

Fig. 17. Converter is stable with a PBF (C 1 = 15 nF), v s = 4 V.

0.018
0.016
0.014
0

0.012
Ri (Ω)

0.01 Stable
0.008
0.006

Unstable
0

0.004
0.002

2 3 4 5 6 7
vs (V)

Fig. 18. Contour plot of S = 0 for a buck converter with ICF.

Next, use ICF for stabilization instead. The contour plot of

S = 0 (see Fig. 18) shows that the converter is stable for vs =
4 V and Ri > 2 mΩ. Let Ri = 3 mΩ, for example. The converter
is stable (see Fig. 19). As Ri increases, the stability region
enlarges. For Ri > 16 mΩ, the converter is stable down to vs =
vo = 1.6 V. If Ri = Rc C/(C + C3 ) = 29.8 mΩ, based on (10)
or Fig. 18, the converter is also stable.
VII. CONCLUSION
A general closed-form subharmonic oscillation condition (13)
is derived for the COTC buck converter with a feedback filter
and a turn-on delay. A useful S-plot based on (13) shows the
stability region in the converter parameter space. Three types
of filters are considered: LPF, PBF, and ICF. The associated
stability conditions are summarized in Table V. With the LPF,
the converter is unstable if the stabilizing ramp slope is zero
(ma = 0) and the filter pole is smaller than the ESR zero (p ≤ z).
With the PBF, the stability region enlarges. The past research
result for a particular PBF becomes a special case of this paper.
With the ICF, a zero is introduced to improve the stability, and
it is useful in the composite-capacitor case or when the time
constant Rc C is small.
This paper focuses on variable switching frequency control
(such as COTC) with a feedback filter. Similar analysis can
be applied to fixed switching frequency control with a linear
compensator. The general stability conditions (13) and (19) still
apply, but with different expressions of α(D, p) and βi (D) as
discussed in [8] and [12].
2142 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 29, NO. 4, APRIL 2014

REFERENCES [11] C.-S. Wang, Y.-P. Su, Y.-H. Lee, C.-C. Lin, K.-H. Chen, and M.-J. Du,
“Reduction of equivalent series inductor effect in delay-ripple reshaped
[1] R. Redl and J. Sun, “Ripple-based control of switching regulators—An constant on-time control for buck converter with multilayer ceramic ca-
overview,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2669–2680, pacitors,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2366–2376,
Dec. 2009. May 2013.
[2] C.-C. Fang (1997). “Sampled-data analysis and control of DC-DC switch- [12] C.-C. Fang, “Closed-form critical conditions of subharmonic oscillations
ing converters,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., Univ. of Maryland, for buck converters,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 60,
College Park [Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1903/5903 (Also no. 7, pp. 1967–1974, Jul. 2013.
published by UMI Dissertation Publishing in 1997).
[3] C.-C. Fang, “Closed-form critical conditions of instabilities for constant
on-time controlled buck converters,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg.
Papers, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 3090–3097, Dec. 2012.
[4] J. Li and F. C. Lee, “Modeling of V2 current-mode control,” IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2552–2563, Sep. 2010. Chung-Chieh Fang received the B.S. degree from National Taiwan University,
[5] F. Yu, F. Lee, and P. Mattavelli, “A small signal model for V2 control with and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Maryland, College Park,
composite output capacitors based on describing function approach,” in MD, USA, all in electrical engineering. He also received the J.D. degree from
Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2011, pp. 1236–1243. the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA.
[6] R. Redl and G. Reizik, “Switched-noise filter for the buck converter using He is currently a Legal Manager at Sunplus Technology, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
the output ripple as the PWM ramp,” in Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron.
Conf., 2002, vol. 2, pp. 918–924.
[7] (2006) LM1771 datasheet, Texas Instruments. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/snvs446b/snvs446b.pdf
[8] C.-C. Fang, “Critical conditions for a class of switched linear systems
based on harmonic balance: Applications to DC-DC converters,” Nonlin- Richard Redl (M’86–SM’86–F’08) received the
M.S. degree in telecommunications engineering and
ear Dyn., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 1767–1789, 2012.
the Ph.D. degree from the Technical University of
[9] Y.-C. Lin, C.-J. Chen, D. Chen, and B. Wang, “A ripple-based constant
Budapest, Budapest, Hungary, in 1969 and 1973,
on-time control with virtual inductor current and offset cancellation for
DC power converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 10, respectively.
He is currently an Independent Consultant in
pp. 4301–4310, Oct. 2012.
Switzerland.
[10] T. Qian, “Study of subharmonic oscillation mechanism and effect of circuit
propagation delay for buck converters with constant on-time control,”
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 788–795,
Mar. 2013.