SPEEDAM 2008 International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion

Model Predictive and Sliding Mode Control of a Boost Converter
D. Plaza*, R. De Keyser**, and J. Bonilla***
*Ghent University, LHWM Laboratory of Hydrology and Water Management, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium **Ghent University, EeSA department of Electrical energy, Systems and Automation, Technologiepark 913, B-9052 Gent, Belgium ***Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, ESAT/SCD & CIT/BioTeC, W. de Croylaan 46, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium Abstract--This paper presents a comparative study between two control strategies based on the sliding mode control theory applied to a switched DC-DC Boost converter. A master-slave control structure is applied to the converter such that the inner control loop is a sliding mode current controller and the outer voltage controller is designed according to what follows. First a ProportionalIntegral compensator (PI) is proposed and second, a Model Predictive Controller (MPC) is used aiming an improved performance. The control strategies are validated on the nonlinear hybrid model in a simulation study. Tracking and disturbance rejection tests are performed in order to show the robustness of the controllers. Index Terms—Boost converter, hybrid systems, sliding mode control, model predictive control.

I. INTRODUCTION Switched power converters require few components and, from a theoretical point of view, are simplistic to operate. All DC-DC converters require control circuitry in order to account for load variations, component tolerance, system aging and source voltage variations. The controllers used in practical implementations are frequently of analogue nature and have classic linear structures such as Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) compensator. These compensators normally involve suboptimal design for specifications such as fast response and stability. Hence, there is a need of advanced control methods, which can now be implemented in practice thanks to the latest advances in digital signal processors (DSP) [1]. From a control engineering point of view, DC-DC converters are a traditionally benchmark for testing (advanced) nonlinear controllers. However, apart from their nonlinear characteristics, DC-DC converters pose another interesting feature: they have unstable zero dynamics yielding to nonminimum phase behavior systems. The control of nonminimum phase systems is significantly more difficult than control of systems with stable zero-dynamics since this feature restricts the closed-loop performance. Due to these difficulties, a number of nonlinear controllers have been reported in literature, such as: sliding mode control strategies [2], nonlinear PI
This paper is funded by the ALFA project in the frame of LaBioProC programme – project II-0407-FA and partly by the Belgian Science Policy Office in the frame of the STEREO II programme project SR/00/100.

controllers based on the method of extended linearization [3] and a predictive controller [4,5] using algorithms such as the Extended Prediction Self-Adaptive Control (EPSAC) [6]. The results of an experimental comparison of five control algorithms on a boost converter are presented in [7]: linear averaged controller, feedback linearizing controller, passivity-based controller, sliding mode controller, and sliding mode plus passivity-based controller. The control laws derived for such systems can be classified in two groups, depending on whether they generate directly the switching signal –a hybrid system approach- or whether they require an auxiliary pulse width modulation (PWM) circuit to determine the switch position. Important advantages of sliding mode control over conventional PWM control are stability, even for large supply and load variations, robustness, good dynamic response and simple implementation [8]. However, some drawbacks appear. First, the switching frequency depends on the operating point, due to the hysteretic nature of the control method. Second, steady-state errors can appear in the output response and a significant overshoot in the state variables might arise during the transient regime. This paper deals with a classical Sliding Mode Control (SMC) strategy used as a inner-control for the current loop in a master-slave scheme. The voltage outer loop is implemented as a Proportional-Integral compensator in order to later compare it with a novel control structure based on a Model Predictive Controller. The closed-loop behavior is analyzed with respect to response time, load disturbances, input-source voltage disturbances and robustness. A comparison between the two control strategies is given and advantages and limitations of each approach are discussed. The paper is organized as follows: A brief description of the nonlinear system is presented in section II. The controllers are designed in section III and comparisons are treated in section IV. Finally, a conclusion section summarizes the main outcome of this work, pointing to some future steps for a model based predictive control design. II. CIRCUIT DESCRIPTION The boost converter considered throughout this paper is illustrated in Fig. 1 and the differential equations describing the dynamic of the circuit are presented.

978-1-4244-1664-6/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE


CONTROLLER DESIGN Switching converters are a particular case of variable structure system (VSS). vO(t). the dynamic system is represented with the set of equations: •  0  x1  =   •  1 − u  x2   C  − 1− u 1  L   x1  +  V 1   x2   L  S    0  − RC  I II III IV (2) III. vS(t). Additionally. Sliding Mode Control applied to the Boost converter The design of a sliding mode controller is basically performed in two steps [11]. R= 200Ω. Boost schematic circuit. voltage and logical variable q. iL(t) and vC(t) are continuous variables while q represents the position of the switch (logical variable). On the other hand. The model for simulation is built in MATLAB/SIMULINKTM as a block structure and presented in Fig. (3) where s is the sliding surface and x1* is the desired current.Fig. Since u is a discrete signal with values 0 and 1. yielding to: di L (t ) 1 1 = −(1 − q(t )) vC (t ) + v S (t ) dt L L dvC (t ) 1 1 vC (t ) = (1 − q(t )) i L (t ) − dt C RC Fig. it is important that the designed controllers perform reasonably on a wide operational range of the boost converter. that the system presents a nonminimum phase and high nonlinearity. In the second step. The disturbances applied to the system under control are presented in table I. as reported in [9]. Extensive documentation and internal functions of the software make easier the implementation of models and controllers. x2 and u correspond to the current. For simplicity in the mathematical expressions. research on sliding mode control techniques in VSS report good performance regarding to parameters variations and external disturbances. The advantage of using this interface is that models are entered as block diagrams when the corresponding mathematical descriptions are available for the target systems. which is an important feature to take into account during simulations. respectively. where neither linearization nor averaging of the states is performed. the graphical environment increases the computational load during simulations. due to the nonlinearity of the system. 1. It is well known. The controllers that are presented in this work are implemented in Matlab/SIMULINKTM as well. The closed loop with the SMC policy exhibits a slow time voltage response and steady-state error. A. L=1mH. In the first step the sliding surface is selected according to: * s = x1 − x1 where x1. 38 . TABLE I SIGNALS FOR TESTING THE CONTROLLERS Steady State Set-point increase of 20 V Input Voltage Vs decrease of 50 V Load resistor R reduction in 25% It is assumed that the source voltage is constant (vS(t)=VS). the corresponding control signal u is chosen. the ideal case for the circuit is considered (without losses). 2. hysteresis of ± 1 ampere is set to reduce the chattering phenomena with a switching frequency of 50 kHz. Boost converter modelled in SIMULINK (1) The nominal values of the circuit parameters and the source voltage are: Vs= 230V. 2. Consequently. Therefore. the control law can be designed based on the sign function: u= 1 (1 − sign( s )) 2 (4) Expression (4) represents the case of an ideal switch. The system is modelled using the approach presented in [10]. The converter is a hybrid system due to the interaction between continuous and discrete signals. C=100uF. RL and RC are equal to zero. Thus. When q=0 the switch is opened and when q=1 the switch is closed. SIMULINK is a graphical dynamics modeling software package built on the top of the Matlab numerical workspace.

This predictor is obtained from the linearized dynamic equations of the converter and relates the converter input current with the output voltage. C. 4 is represented by s+ z G2 X2 s = * X2 k G + k s + z G 1 1 2 2 s k2 Fig. can represent the linearized transfer function of a pulse width modulator PWM (m≠0) or the ideal control law (4) in sliding mode (m=0). X2(s)) transfer functions G1(s). Cascade control scheme using SMC and PI (PI+SMC). 5. in this work a linear SSA MPC approach is used. The novelty consists in the use of a MPC algorithm as the voltage controller. Block diagram for a switching DC-DC converter with two states. A novel control structure is presented in this study. the closed loop transfer function of the block diagram in fig. The MPC is based on the dynamical model of the process. * s = k1 x1 + k 2 x2 − x2 + k 2 z A generalized approach for designing compensating networks in sliding mode controlled DC-DC switching converters and its validation is well known. RC VS − Lk 2 > 0 VO (7) By setting k2=1 and using (6). z >0. (5) The first step to apply the EPSAC as a controller is to determine a proper model for prediction. 5 shows a block diagram of the proposed control scheme. 4 is the generalized block diagram for a two states switching DC-DC converter. Fig. Fig. the zero of the PI controller is found based on the zero-pole cancellation method: k2 s+z 2 ⇒ z= s RC (8) The PI control loop modifies the original sliding surface (3) according to Fig. The model used for prediction is given by −L VO V s+R S VS VO ( RC )s + 2 In order to analyze the stability of the system. ( ) ∫ (x 2 − x* dt 2 ) (9) The addition of the integral term eliminates the steadystate error of the output voltage. The characteristic polynomial is found for the closed loop transfer function assuming k1=1 from the original sliding surface (3): −L VO V s+R S VS VO =0 ( RC )s + 2 VO (s ) = I ( s) (10) 1 + k2 s+ z s (6) Additionally.B. In order to design a PI controller. the noise model employed in the Controlled Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (CARIMA) predictor: C (q −1 ) D( q ) −1 where VO is the desired output voltage and stability is accomplished when: = 1 1− q −1 = eC (t ) e(t ) (11) 39 . The describing function 1/m. 4. The EPSAC controller sets the desired current and the current is controlled by the SMC approach. 3. the input to states (U(s) to X1(s). k 2 > 0. Fig. Using Mason’s rule. G2(s) are considered to be known. based on the input/output models of the process [6]. The EPSAC algorithm is a well known MPC variant. MPC and SMC (MPC+SMC) applied to the boost converter. However. Model Predictive and Sliding control in a cascade structure. the Routh-Hurwitz criterion is used. Cascade control of the converter with sliding mode control (PI+SMC) Fig. a State Space Average Model (SSA) [12] is obtained from (2) and a linearization procedure is performed. (MPC+SMC) The MPC strategy is applied as a compensating network to close the voltage loop while the current controller is not modified. 3 shows the block diagram of a cascade control. Hereafter. the inner control loop corresponds to the sliding mode current controller and the outer loop is a ProportionalIntegral compensator. The approach presented in [12] is used here for this purpose.

7.9 and k represents the sample instant. 6.u ( t + N u −1) k = N1 ∑ [r (t + k | t ) − y(t + k | t )]2 N2 (12) The degrees of freedom in the control law u can be reduced defining a control horizon Nu. According to interval II. The simulation is run around the operating point of 460V and external disturbances are applied according to the test described in table I. eC(t) corresponds to a colored noise signal while e(t) is assumed as white noise signal. (14) Figures 8 and 9 show the output voltage response for different operating points. IV. While the formulation for the sliding mode control has been developed for continuous time. the power coming into the circuit is all consumed by the load resistor. The cost function considers the errors between the predicted model outputs y(t+k‫׀‬t) and the reference trajectory r(t+k‫׀‬t). (13) The averaged inductor current and capacitor voltage can be calculated by the moving average filter: I ave = βI ave (k − 1) + (1 − β ) I (k ). the addition of the filter to the control structure in the EPSAC approach modifies the overall dynamic of the 40 . with ( R ⋅ VS ) est = Oave ( R ⋅ VS ) est I ave 2 (15) where the product (RVS) is estimated using the filtered values of the states.e. Based on a previous research [13]. 7 shows the output voltage response of the control approaches (PI+SMC and MPC+SMC).. interval III: 10 ms ≤ t < 35 ms. (a) PI+SMC response and (b) MPC+SMC response. and finally interval IV: 35 ms ≤t < 60 ms. VOave). The evaluation is done around three different operating points (330 V. the time response for a change in the setpoint is around 1ms for the control structure based in the PI compensator. a new topology is adopted where an external filter is implemented aiming an improvement in the rejection of external disturbances. 6 presents the block diagram of the system with the addition of the external filter. it is expected an improved performance by a proper design of the MPC strategy. This estimation can be performed based on the observation that. For a desired output voltage (V*). the desired inductor current (I*) can be calculated as: I* = V2 V* . EPSAC and SMC modified control structure (EPSAC+SMC). Output voltage response around 460V. (a) 485 480 475 470 465 460 455 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 u ( t ). interval II: 5 ms ≤ t < 10 ms. The problem (12) refers to the classical minimization of a quadratic cost function and can be solved explicitly under the assumption of a linear model (10) for the dynamical system involved and neglecting constraints on the optimization variables.is chosen as the disturbance process model in order to account for model mismatch and achieve zero steadystate error. The objective of the model predictive control is to find the input sequence that minimizes a given cost function J. Interval I corresponds to 0 ≤ t < 5 ms. based on a desired output trajectory over a prediction horizon (N1…N2). i. refinement of the later technique is needed. Here. Due to the similar behavior for the control approaches presented previously (PI+SMC and MPC+SMC). on average (Iave. Section IV presents the simulation results for both techniques. SIMULATION RESULTS The comparison of the proposed control methods is performed in this section. sampling period Ts=20 us and it is assumed that the reference trajectory is equal to the setpoint. the implementation of the control algorithms was executed in discrete time. Different time intervals are defined as follows. Both controllers have a fast time response. formulated as: min J= where β is set to 0. Although the simulations results show similar performance for both techniques. control horizon Nu=1.. Fig. Fig. prediction horizon N2=15. VOave = βVOave (k − 1) + (1 − β )V (k ). with Nu<N2. 460 V and 590 V) in order to compare the behavior of the PI+SMC controller and EPSAC+SMC controller. The new block involves an estimation of the desired current. while for the MPC based controller this value is 3 ms. VS I ave = 2 VOave R Fig. however. The design parameters of the MPC controller are N1 = 1 (no time delay). Output Voltage (V) I II III IV (b) 485 Output Voltage (V) 480 475 470 465 460 455 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (ms) 35 40 45 50 55 60 I II III IV Fig.

R. On the other hand. 485 480 controller and increasing the prediction horizon in the MPC approach.II/II. Fig. there is still an expected improvement over the presented behavior in EPSAC algorithm by tuning appropriately the model for prediction. 10. The time response for disturbance rejection is slightly different among the three operating points. Fig.1987. [3] H. Although the MPC approach shows better performance than the classical PI technique for disturbance rejection. Circuits Systems. 5p paper nr. Sira-Ramirez: Sliding motions in bilinear switched networks. The next step to improve the performance of the structure based on MPC method is the addition of the input penalization in the optimal control problem (12) to reduce or eliminate the overshoot in the current behavior. IEEE Trans. p. Aug. Interval III presents the effects of an input voltage decrement. Output Voltage (V) 485 480 475 470 465 460 455 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 V. Input Current at three operating points: PI+SMC . the EPSAC approach with the desired current estimation block presents a faster recovery. The approach based on the PI compensator shows a time response of 20ms and the EPSAC around 3ms. 2003. Control. J. 8 depicts more clearly these times for 460 V. Italy. described in interval IV.system leading to an overshoot of around 4 volts in the voltage response.(dotted line).601-620. p. 10 presents the current behavior for three different operating points. CONCLUSIONS I II III IV 355 350 345 340 335 330 325 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (ms) 35 40 45 50 55 60 I II III IV Fig. Lazar. 615 610 605 600 595 590 585 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 I II III IV 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (ms) 35 40 45 50 55 60 I II III IV Fig. 9. A test on disturbance rejection shows important differences. The big overshoot in the current is due to the fast voltage response for setpoint variation described on interval II.(dotted line). Capri. On the other hand. EPSAC+SMC . Int. This is an alternative to the traditional control strategies for switching DC-DC converters based on the use of a PWM unit.(dotted line). Automation & Motion. IEEE Transaction Power Electronics.(continuous line). Further research on this topic involves the use of a better noise model in the EPSAC algorithm in order to avoid the use of the external filter. EPSAC+SMC . 10. REFERENCES [1] Special issue on digital control in power electronics. 8. 16-18 June. SPEEDAM’04 Symposium on Power Electronics. while the PI+SMC structure recovers slowly from disturbances. Output voltage around 460V: PI+SMC . vol.(continuous line). including constraints on the control increases the complexity of the control law. [4] M. 1990. Electrical Drives. De Keyser: Non-linear predictive control of a DC-to-DC converter. However. a decrement in the load resistance. This peak could be reduced through the proportional gain of the PI+SMC A comparative study over two different control techniques on a DC-DC boost converter has been presented. [2] H. the penalization of the input to eliminate the current peaks and the study of the optimal parameter values in the EPSAC algorithm. The fast response in the voltage generates a big peak in the current as can be seen in fig. A206. 919-933. Output voltage for three operating points PI+SMC . CAS-34. 40 475 Output Voltage (V) 30 20 470 I II III IV 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 465 Inductor Current (A) 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 460 I II III IV I 455 0 5 II 10 15 20 III 25 30 Time (ms) 35 40 45 IV 50 55 60 40 30 20 10 Fig. 18(1) Vol. a novel structure based on the sliding mode control technique and MPC is developed and studied under simulation. Sira-Ramirez: Design of PI controllers for DC-to-DC power supplies via extended linearization. 41 .(continuous line). 51(3). EPSAC+SMC . produces a time response for PI+SMC around 23ms while for the EPSAC+SMC controller is only 3ms.

Martínez. Sliding Modes and their applications in Variable Structure Systems. [9] R. Ortega. 3. 45. J. 2004. Proc. L. R. Escobar. p. Electrical Drives. Calvente. J. [7] G. 2055-2058. Ionescu.European Control Conference.[5] J. (USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers). 307-315. Advanced Control of a Boost Converter. IEEE Transactions on Education.66-82. Bonilla. J. [6] R. 1995. IEEE Symposium on Power Electronics. 1974). Compensating networks for Sliding Mode Control. R. Dong-Shiuh Wu: Learning feedback controller design of switching converters via MATLAB/SIMULINK. Vilain and I. (Mir. D. D. Sbarciog. IEEE International Symposium in Circuits and Systems. Giral. Poveda. 2003. [12] R. . [11] V. of the EUCA . Erickson. A. Sliding Mode Control in Electromechanical Systems. R. V. C.P. Plaza: Nonlinear Predictive Control of a DC-DC Converter. July 2007. 1999. [8] Utkin. I. Hernanz. pp. (London: Taylor & Francis). Shi. Automation & Motion (Speedam2004). 2001. M. Jiann-Jong Chen. Guldner. 1999. Sira-Ramirez: J. EoLSS Publishers Co Ltd. 2002. Zein: An experimental comparison of several nonlinear controllers for power converters. De Keyser.. Leyva. De Keyser. Utkin. Maksimovic. 19(1). and J. Fundamentals of Power Electronics. Guinjoan. F. IEEE Control Systems. [13] R. Invited Chapter in “UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EoLSS)”. [10] Juing-Huei Su. I. 42 . 745-750. A NEPSAC approach. De Keyser: Model Based Predictive Control. Moscow. H. Oxford.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful