2022 01 06 LECTURE 9 ModelingAndCurrentControl

Power Electronics – Control, Synthesis, Applications (CSA)
Modeling and Current Control of Power Converters
06.01.2022
Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck
Institute for Power Electronics

and Electrical Drives 1
Consultation hour with “Special Lab Session Today @ 06:30pm in Zoom
Special Topic: Active Power Cycling and Real-Time Aging Diagnosis
■ Frequency-domain thermal
impedance spectroscopy
□ Exciting Gate with a sinusoidal
𝑉GS in mΩ
voltage
□ Using temperature dependency
of 𝑅DS,on
Real-time aging diagnosis
𝑉DS in mΩ
during power cycling quadratic approximation
error bars
𝑅DS,on in mΩ
𝑇NTC in °C
time in s temperature in °C
2 06.01.2022 | Isabel Austrup

Power Electronics (CSA) - Modeling and Current Control of Power Converters
Outline
■ Modeling and analysis

□ Review steady-state and dynamic operation
□ Linear time Invariant converter model
□ State variables, disturbance and model
deviations
□ State block diagram and Laplace domain model
□ Dynamic converter analysis ■ Objective
□ How to model converters as linear-time invariant (LTI)
systems, e.g. via transfer functions or block diagrams
■ Control Design MATLAB □ Create physical insight into converter control design
□ Requirements and objectives ■ What is the control performance we want to achieve?
□ Control structure Simulink ■ What limits the control performance?
□ Feedback design and analysis ■ What is the “design-space” we can explore?
□ Command tracking □ Linking time and frequency domain control dynamics
□ Trajectory generation □ Design command tracking and disturbance response
□ Validation via simulation independent of each other
□ Experimental control design validation □ Learning about effective control design tools and metrics
3 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

Modeling and analysis
Review steady-state and dynamic operation
■ PWM modulation creates average voltage 𝑢ത pwm

□ Adjustable via the duty cycle d
■ PWM Properties
□ Repetitive voltage pulses at fsw
□ Average PWM voltage follows reference
■ Makes converter a controllable voltage source

■ PWM modulation creates average voltage 𝑢ത pwm

□ Adjustable via the duty cycle d
■ Steady state operation

□ Average current 𝑖Lҧ over period Tsw does not change
□ Equal volt-second areas A1 = A2

■ Dynamic operation
□ Change the average current over one switching period
□ Increment or decrement of 𝑢ത pwm via duty cycle d

□ Unequal volt-second areas A1 > A2
■ Key concept for current control

□ Manipulate 𝑢ത pwm via d to get a desired average current

Linear time invariant (LTI) converter model
■ Limitation
□ Converters are intrinsically nonlinear system due to
their switching behavior
■ Objective
□ Transform a power converter to a LTI system
□ This allows utilizing widely-spread techniques for
analysis and design of dynamic LTI systems e.g.
■ Superposition
■ Laplace/Fourier Transform and transfer functions
■ Frequency domain representation
■ Pole-zero representation Average current
■ Concept
□ We cannot manipulate the instantaneous current
□ Manipulate the averaged PWM voltage 𝑢ത pwm to
control the averaged current 𝑖Lҧ

Linear time invariant (LTI) converter model - Short-term averaging
■ Converter equation
■ Short-term averaged variable over Ts = Tsw
Average current

Linear time invariant (LTI) converter model - Short-term averaging
■ Converter equation
■ Short-term averaged variable over Ts = Tsw
■ Short-term averaged converter equation

Modeling
Short-term
Process
averaging creates
LTI model
Derivate of average iL Manipulated input voltage

over Tsw generated with PWM um = 𝑢ത pwm

Linear Time Invariant (LTI) Converter Model - Synchronous Sampling
■ Measuring average current without lag

□ Low-pass filter is not an option → Induces lag
□ Sample at top or floor of the carrier
“Synchronous Sampling”
■ This extracts averaged current without lag
Modeling
Short-term averaged
Process
current can be
extracted

Linear Time Invariant (LTI) Converter Model - PWM Model
■ Modeling the PWM with a latch

□ Not possible to include PWM in linear model
□ Approximating the PWM by a latch is the best we can do
□ Latch exhibits a delay of Ts/2
□ Single Update
■ Reference is updated with Tsw at peak or valley

Linear Time Invariant (LTI) Converter Model - PWM Model
■ Modeling the PWM with a latch

□ Not possible to include PWM in linear model
□ Approximating the PWM by a latch is the best we can do
□ Latch exhibits a delay of Ts/2
□ Single Update
■ Reference is updated with Tsw at peak or valley
□ Double Update
■ Reference is updated with Tsw/2 at peak and valley

Linear time invariant (LTI) converter model – Update delay
■ Current sampling and voltage update

□ Only possible at top and/or floor of the carrier
□ Computation of the control algorithm needs time
■ Update delay between sampling and update
□ Minimal update delay Tdelay = Tpwm/2 (DSDU)
Modeling
Process
From now on leave out bars on

variables for convenience

Linear time invariant (LTI) converter model – Blanking Time
■ Concept
□ Both devices must never be turned-on at the same time
■ Short circuit will destroy the converter
□ Introduction of blanking times
■ After one device is turned-off a defined time
must pass before the other device turns on
■ Effect on the converter operation
□ Commutation is delayed
■ At turn-on of S2 if iL < 0
■ At turn-on of S1 if iL > 0
□ The manipulated voltage exhibits an error
■Compensation is partially possible

□ Duty cycles d close to 1 and 0 cannot be modulated
State variables, disturbance and model deviations
■ System variables
□ State variables (e.g. iL) █
■ Variables of the plant that exhibit energy storage
capability
□ Load variables (e.g. uLoad) █
■ External variables that are measured
□ Disturbances (e.g. udist) █
■ Variables that are not measured, e.g.
Modeling
− Approximation error of the PWM
Process
− Blanking time
− Measurement inaccuracies of variables
■ Objective
□ Use information on load and state-variable for control
□ Make a system insensitive to disturbances
State variables, disturbance and model deviations
■ Model deviations
□ Parametric deviations (e.g. DL and DRL) █
■ Incorrect parameter estimate
■ Temperature induced parameter drifts
■ Saturation effects
□ Effects and dynamics not included in model
■ Neglecting delays associate with …
… voltage modulation █
Modeling
… sampling and update process █
Process
■ Ignoring dynamics of the sensor and measurement circuitry █
− Current measurement must not be low-pass filtered to mitigate
noise (Synchronous Sampling does not work)
■ Objective
□ Be aware of all relevant model deviations or changes
□ “Robust” design of the control loop must take them into account
■ Easy for feedback design & difficult for feed forward

State block diagram and Laplace domain model
■ Develop state block diagram

□ Include integrators, one for each energy storage device
□ Use device equation for interconnecting states and inputs
■ Advantage of state block diagrams
□ Dynamics of physical systems as well as controls are
represented graphically revealing cause-effect relations
□ Allows insightfully inspecting system dynamics for
manipulation and control design
Modeling
Process

■ Model of modulator dynamics M(s) must reflect TPWM
□ Update-delay Tupdate = TPWM/2 = Ts TS
□ Delay due to latch TLatch = TPWM/4 = Ts/2

□ Total delay TD = Tupdate + TLatch = 1.5·Ts
■ Approximation in the Laplace domain

□ Delay is approximated by first order low-pass
Double-sampling double-update
□ Inaccuracies are reflected in udist

■ Model of modulator dynamics M(s) must reflect TPWM
□ Update-delay Tupdate = TPWM/2 = Ts TS
□ Delay due to latch TLatch = TPWM/4 = Ts/2

□ Total delay TD = Tupdate + TLatch = 1.5·Ts
■ Approximation in the Laplace domain

□ Delay is approximated by first order low-pass
Double-sampling double-update
□ Inaccuracies are reflected in udist

■ Assumptions
□ Ideal sensors
□ Modulator dynamics are are negligible M(s) = 1
■ Valid if PWM frequency exceeds control bandwidth
by a least a decade
■ Analytical system response calculation of Transfer function calculation

the short-term averaged current
□ Determine disturbance transfer function
□ Determine excitation
Modeling
□ Calculate response in the Laplace Domain Process

Parameter Quantity
■ Analytical system response calculation of Transfer function calculation Input voltage 400 V
the short-term averaged current Output voltage 200 V
□ Determine disturbance transfer function Duty cycle 0.5
Inductance L 1 mH
Resistance R 100 mW
□ Determine excitation PWM frequency 10 kHz

Dead-time −
Sampling and update DSDU
Disturbance voltage 1V
MATLAB
□ Calculate response in the Laplace Domain
□ Transfer result to the time domain with

Laplace table with

Dynamic converter analysis
■ Analytical system response calculation of

□ Determine disturbance transfer function t
t
■ Eigenvalue
□ Pole of the transfer function Gd(s)
□ Characterizes response dynamics of single

pole
■ Response speed ~ -Re{sEV}
− Increases towards negative branch of real-axis

■ MATLAB and the Control Systems Toolbox (Short-term averaged model)

□ LTI systems can be flexibly created, interconnected and analyzed
MATLAB
Control
Systems
Toolbox

■ MATLAB Simulink (Short-term averaged model)

□ Simulink allows conducting complex linear and nonlinear system-simulations
Simulink

■ PLECS (Piecewise Linear Electrical Circuit Simulation) embedded in Simulink

□ Control design addresses short-term averaged current █
□ PLECS simulates entire converter operation █
Simulink
PLECS

MATLAB
■ Dynamic stiffness (DS)
□ Metric for disturbance rejection ability
□ How much disturbance (voltage) is required to change
the state variable (current) by one ampere?
■ Dynamic-stiffness magnitude calculation

□ Approximation based on asymptotes
□ Low bandwidth DS (f < fb) dominated by resistance

□ High bandwidth DS (f > fb) dominated by inductance Disturbance of 0.1V Disturbance of 2 V
■ Bandwidth of asymptote intersect corresponds to EV results current error of 1A results current error of 1A
■ Steady state error

□ Results from DS at low bandwidth
06.01.2022

Outline
■ Review - Modeling and analysis

□ Review steady-state and dynamic operation
□ Linear time Invariant converter model
□ State variables, disturbance and model
deviations
□ State block diagram and Laplace domain model
□ Dynamic converter analysis ■ Objective
□ How to model converters as linear-time invariant (LTI)
systems, e.g. via transfer functions or block diagrams
■ Control Design MATLAB □ Create physical insight into converter control design
□ Requirements and objectives ■ What is the control performance we want to achieve?
□ Control structure Simulink ■ What limits the control performance?
□ Feedback design and analysis ■ What is the “design-space” we can explore?
□ Command tracking □ Linking time and frequency domain control dynamics
□ Trajectory generation □ Design command tracking and disturbance response
□ Validation via simulation independent of each other
□ Experimental control design validation □ Learning about effective control design tools and metrics

Creating models of power electronic converters
Eliminate nonlinearity via

“short–term averaging”
Deriving state block diagram

by identifying energy states

Deriving disturbance response

the short-term averaged current Transfer function calculation
□ Determine disturbance transfer function
□ Determine excitation
□ Calculate response in the Laplace Domain
□ Transfer result to the time domain with

Laplace table with

Analyzing converter behavior

□ Determine disturbance transfer function t
t
■ Eigenvalue
□ Pole of the transfer function Gd(s)
□ Characterizes response dynamics of single

pole
■ Response speed ~ -Re{sEV}
− Increases towards negative branch of real-axis

Using dynamic stiffness as a metric for disturbance response
■ Dynamic stiffness (DS)

□ Metric for disturbance rejection ability
□ How much disturbance (voltage) is required to change
the state variable (current) by one ampere?
1 decade
■ Dynamic-stiffness magnitude calculation
□ Approximation based on asymptotes 1 decade
□ Low bandwidth DS (f < fb) dominated by resistance

□ High bandwidth DS (f > fb) dominated by inductance Disturbance of 0.1V Disturbance of 2 V
■ Bandwidth of asymptote intersect corresponds to EV results current error of 1A results current error of 1A
■ Steady state error

□ Results from DS at low bandwidth
Control Design
Requirements and Objectives
Rejection of disturbances State-Feedback Design

❑ Minimize effect of disturbances ❑ State feedback and load/disturbance decoupling
❑ Achieve zero steady-state error ❑ Adding state feedback path
❑ Avoid unwanted resonances ❑ Dynamic stiffness-based feedback design
Command tracking Command-Tracking Design

❑ Follow reference currents iL ❑ State-feedback decoupling
❑ Fast response time ❑ Command filters and feedforward
❑ Achieve zero steady-state error ❑ Generate feasible references

Control Design
Control Structure - Load Voltage Decoupling
■ Decouple effect of load voltage █

□ Measure load voltage and compensate its effect
■ Decoupling eliminates impact of uload on iL
■ Measurement errors of uload are reflected in udist
■ How to improve the dynamic stiffness?

□ Enhancing the “passive” properties of a physical
system by “active” control
□ Provide “active resistance“

Control Design
Control Structure - Proportional State-Feedback Control
■ Proportional state feedback path █

□ Acts like “active” resistance realized by converter
□ Augments dynamic stiffness at low bandwidth
□ Determine bandwidth via asymptote intersection
Control bandwidth fp
■ For f < fp the feedback gain Kp dominates the stiffness
■ For f > fb the inductance L dominates the stiffness
□ System dynamics are reflected by eigenvalue / pole of Gd(s)
■ Larger Kp leads to faster response
− EV is directly reflected in bandwidth fb

Control Design
Control Structure - Proportional State-Feedback Control
■ Proportional state feedback path █

□ Time domain response
→ Strong rejection of disturbances

■ Strong attenuation of the disturbance response
■ Steady state error is not compensated
□ Time constant
■ Time constant t directly relates to

eigenvalue and bandwidth fb

Control Design
Feedback Design and Analysis - Dynamic Stiffness-based Design
■ Asymptotes indicate relation between feedback

gain KP and proportional bandwidth fp
■ Bandwidth fp is limited by
□ Signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) of the sensor
□ PWM dynamics
■ Ideal voltage modulation M(s) = 1 can only be
assumed if feedback bandwidth fp < fpwm/10
■ Maximum feedback bandwidth and gain
■ At bandwidth above fpmax

□ Modulator dynamics M(s) need to be considered

Current Control Design and Analysis
Limits of the Control Design
■ What happens if the control bandwidth

exceeds the maximal bandwidth
>
□ Modulator does not work properly
□ Dynamic stiffness descends to passive design
□ Effects
■ Local minimum of the stiffness
■ Oscillations in the disturbance Active Passive
design design
■ Complex conjugated EVs
■ Features of proportional feedback control

□ Higher Kp mitigates disturbances
□ Constraint Kp due to
■ Modulator bandwidth
■ Sensor bandwidth
Voltage modulator bandwidth
■ Sensor signal-to-noise ratio
□ Steady-state error remains 

Control Design
PI State-Feedback Control
■ Integral state feedback path █

□ Accumulates error and increases manipulated input
voltage until error DiL is entirely compensated
■ No steady state error after disturbance steps
■ Stiffness reaches towards infinity for f → 0

Control Design

Proportional feedback bandwidth Inductance

□ Relation of feedback bandwidths fp, fi and gains Kp, Ki
■ Intersection of asymptotes
Integral feedback bandwidth

Control Design


− Larger Ki results in higher low-bandwidth stiffness .

Control Design
Control Structure PI State-Feedback Control



− Larger Kp increases medium-bandwidth / worst case stiffness.

Control Design



− Larger Kp increases medium-bandwidth / worst case stiffness.
− Larger L increases high-bandwidth stiffness.

Control Design
Combining Frequency and Time Domain for Control Design
■ Laplace domain analysis

□ Disturbance transfer function
□ Eigenvalues for fp>> fi
with
use
Proportional feedback bandwidth Inductance
≈1 Truncated Taylor Series
□ Eigenvalues sEV1,2 directly relate to bandwidths fp and fi

■ Reflection in disturbance transfer function

Control Design
■ Time domain analysis

□ Disturbance transfer function Gd(s)
for
□ Solve via partial fraction decomposition
≈ Lwp = Kp
□ Time domain response
Determines settling time Determines maximum deviation t0

Control Design
■ Control bandwidth fp limited by

□ PWM dynamics
■ Voltage modulation only works up to f < fpwm/10
□ Signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) of the sensor

■ Integral state-feedback bandwidth fi
□ Keep bandwidths of Kp and Ki a decade apart
□ Close proximity of fi and fp results in oscillatory EVs Proportional feedback bandwidth Inductance
■ Larger bandwidths or gains requires higher …

□ Inductance L or
□ PWM frequency fpwm and better sensors

Control Design
Validation via simulation
Feedback Design Bandwidth fx Gain Kx

■ PLECS simulation of the half-bridge converter
Proportional (p) 1000 Hz 18 V/A
■ Simulink simulation of the control
Integral (i) 200 Hz 22600 V/As
Disturbance voltage step of 100 V is smoothly rejected
Converter: fpwm = 10 kHz, L = 3 mH, Rp= 2 W
Simulink

Control Design
Requirements and Objectives
Rejection of disturbances State-Feedback Design

❑ Minimize effect of disturbances ❑ State feedback and load/disturbance decoupling
❑ Achieve zero steady-state error ❑ Adding state feedback path
❑ Avoid unwanted resonances ❑ Dynamic stiffness-based feedback design
Command tracking Command-Tracking Design

❑ Follow reference currents iL ❑ State-feedback decoupling
❑ Fast response time ❑ Command filters and feedforward
❑ Achieve zero steady-state error ❑ Generate feasible references

Control Design
Command Tracking - Analysis of Proportional Feedback Control
■ Frequency response function (FRF)

s = jw
with
□ Eigenvalue sEV and bandwidth fb remain █

□ Steady state error occurs █
fp

Control Design
Command Tracking - Virtual Zero-Reference (VZR)
■ Frequency response function (FRF)

s = jw
with
□ Eigenvalue sEV and bandwidth fb remain █

□ Steady state error occurs █
■ Virtual Zero-Reference (VZR)
□ Passive resistance Rp “behaves” identical to
proportional feedback path Kp,
■ BUT applies virtual zero reference iLVZR = 0
□ Two references are applied in parallel that are
weighted with their feedback gains
fp
=0
Control Design
Command Tracking - Virtual Zero-Reference (VZR) Decoupling
■ Decouple Virtual Zero-Reference via active

current state feedback
□ Requires resistance estimate 𝑅෠𝑝 -
≈1
□ Decoupling eliminates steady state error

entirely if resistance Rp is known
෠𝑝 exhibits small inaccuracies VZR
■ If 𝑅
decoupling still improves command tracking

Control Design
Command Tracking - Analysis of PI Feedback Control
■ Decouple Virtual Zero-Reference via active

current state feedback
□ Requires resistance estimate 𝑅෠𝑝
≈1
□ Decoupling eliminates steady state error Unity gain

entirely if resistance Rp is known
Approaches reference
෠𝑝 exhibits small inaccuracies VZR
■ If 𝑅
decoupling still improves command tracking
■ Integral feedback path (moderate gain) Integral feedback bandwidth
□ Ensures command tracking with unity gain in Proportional feedback bandwidth

its bandwidth fi and compensates inaccuracies

Control Design
Command Tracking - Analysis of PI Feedback Control
■ Integral feedback design of Ki

□ Yielding maximum bandwidth with real poles
■ Frequency response function and step
response show stronger overshoot 
□ System poles are not the root-cause

■ Im{sEV} = 0
□ Dominant zero of the transfer function results
in this overshoot

Control Design
Command Tracking - Command Filter based on Low-Pass
■ Integral feedback design of Ki

□ Yielding maximum bandwidth with real poles
■ Frequency response function and step
response show stronger overshoot 
□ System poles are not the root-cause

■ Im{sEV} = 0
□ Dominant zero of the transfer function results
in this overshoot
■ Add low pass-filter as command filter
□ Time constant t = Ki/Kp
□ Compensates effect of zero ☺

□ Adds strong lag to system 
Control Design
Trajectory Generation - Command Feedforward
■ Apply command feedforward voltage ucff that

generates the desired current iL
■ 1st order systems CFF results from model inversion
□ Feedback regulator only compensates

■ Model-parameter deviations DL, DRp
■ Disturbance voltages udist
thus integral feedback cannot cause overshoot

Control Design
Trajectory Generation - Command Feedforward
■ Apply command feedforward voltage ucff that

generates the desired current iL
■ 1st order systems CFF results from model inversion
□ Feedback regulator only compensates

■ Model-parameter deviations
■ Disturbance voltages
■ Features
□ Enables command tracking with
■ Minimal amplitude error above feedback bandwidth
■ Nearly zero phase even above feedback bandwidth
□ Allows designing command tracking bandwidth
independent of feedback bandwidth Proportional feedback bandwidth
■ e.g. due low cost noisy sensors

Control Design
Trajectory Generation - Feasible Trajectories
■ Limits of command tracking

□ Modulator bandwidth
□ Voltage limits of the converter
■ Maximal/minimal available voltage that
limits feasible diL/dt
Maximum positive diL/dt Maximum negative diL/dt
Not feasible Feasible

( )
ucffmax

Control Design
Trajectory Generation – Trajectory filter
Trajectory Filter Feedback Control Plant
■ Trajectory generation
□ Generates feasible and consistent
command trajectories including
■ Current reference iLref
■ Command feedforward voltage uCFF
□ Takes into account voltage limits
■ Trajectory filter
□ Feedback gain Kc Not feasible Feasible
■ Determines bandwidth
□ Voltage limit
■ Reflects voltage limits of converter ucffmax
□ Model of the plant
■ Ensures consistent generation of current
command and command feedforward voltage

Control Design
Evaluation based on Simulation - Command Tracking
■ Trajectory achieves optimized command tracking

Design Bandwidth fx Gain Kx
Proportional feedback (p) 1000 Hz 18 V/A
Integral feedback (i) 200 Hz 22600 V/As
Command filter 5000 Hz 31000 V/A
Converter: fpwm = 10 kHz, L = 3 mH, Rp= 0.1 W
Maximal available voltage of

400V is not exceeded
Simulink

Summary
Modeling PWM converters as Disturbance rejection ability is Command tracking is enabled
LTI system is achieved via achieve via feedback gains by CFF and trajectory filter
❑ Short-term averaging ❑ Sensors and modulator limit fp ❑ Independent of state feedback
❑ Synchronous sampling ❑ DS provides design insights ❑ CFF yields minimal error

06.01.2022

Notices

Institut für Stromrichtertechnik und Elektrische Antriebe

2022 01 06 LECTURE 9 ModelingAndCurrentControl

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 01 06 LECTURE 9 ModelingAndCurrentControl

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power Electronics – Control, Synthesis, Applications (CSA)

Modeling and Current Control of Power Converters

Institute for Power Electronics

2 06.01.2022 | Isabel Austrup

■ Modeling and analysis

3 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ PWM modulation creates average voltage 𝑢ത pwm

4 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ PWM modulation creates average voltage 𝑢ത pwm

■ Steady state operation

□ Equal volt-second areas A1 = A2

5 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

□ Increment or decrement of 𝑢ത pwm via duty cycle d

■ Key concept for current control

6 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

7 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Short-term averaged variable over Ts = Tsw

8 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Short-term averaged variable over Ts = Tsw

■ Short-term averaged converter equation

Derivate of average iL Manipulated input voltage

9 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Measuring average current without lag

10 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Modeling the PWM with a latch

□ Latch exhibits a delay of Ts/2

11 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Modeling the PWM with a latch

□ Latch exhibits a delay of Ts/2

12 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Current sampling and voltage update

From now on leave out bars on

13 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■Compensation is partially possible

16 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Develop state block diagram

17 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Model of modulator dynamics M(s) must reflect TPWM

□ Update-delay Tupdate = TPWM/2 = Ts TS

□ Delay due to latch TLatch = TPWM/4 = Ts/2

■ Approximation in the Laplace domain

□ Inaccuracies are reflected in udist

18 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Model of modulator dynamics M(s) must reflect TPWM

□ Update-delay Tupdate = TPWM/2 = Ts TS

□ Delay due to latch TLatch = TPWM/4 = Ts/2

■ Approximation in the Laplace domain

□ Inaccuracies are reflected in udist

■ Analytical system response calculation of Transfer function calculation

20 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

□ Determine excitation PWM frequency 10 kHz

□ Transfer result to the time domain with

21 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Analytical system response calculation of

□ Characterizes response dynamics of single

22 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ MATLAB and the Control Systems Toolbox (Short-term averaged model)

23 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ MATLAB Simulink (Short-term averaged model)

24 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ PLECS (Piecewise Linear Electrical Circuit Simulation) embedded in Simulink

25 06.01.2022 | Dr.-Ing. Christoph H. van der Broeck

■ Dynamic-stiffness magnitude calculation

□ Low bandwidth DS (f < fb) dominated by resistance