designfeature

Michael O’Loughlin, Applications Engineer,

Texas Instruments, Dallas, Texas

Choosing Between Semi-Bridgeless

or Interleaved PFC Pre-Regulators

Designers have a choice
between semi-bridgeless and
interleaved PFC pre-regu-
lators. The semi-bridgeless
removes half the bridge-
rectifier losses, whereas the
interleaved PFC can reduce
I2R losses up to 50%.
T
o help conserve energy some utility companies and environmental agen-
cies have developed initiatives and incentive programs to make offline
ac-dc converters more efficient. To reduce power line transmission losses,
these same agencies are requesting that offline converters have power
factor correction (PFC). Some initiatives are Energy Star, Climate Savers,
and the 80 Plus Program for computing power. These programs are very
similar in nature, requiring offline power converters to be more than 80%
efficient at loads from 20% to 100%, and need to have a power factor greater than 0.9
at full load.
Meeting these power-factor requirements necessitates the use of a PFC pre-regulator,
which penalizes efficiency. Two innovative PFC control techniques have been developed
to improve PFC pre-regulator efficiency.
The first topology is semi-bridgeless PFC that removes half the bridge-rectifier losses.
The second topology is interleaved PFC, which can reduce the converter’s I2R by up to
50%. Both techniques require two boost stages to increase efficiency. So the question
becomes, “Which one should you chose for your power supply design?” To help answer
this question, we’ll evaluate both topologies – theoretically and physically. Our purpose
is to share these findings with power-supply designers so they can choose the best topol-
ogy based on their system requirements.

Semi-Bridgeless PFC
Let’s review the semi-bridgeless PFC pre-regulator presented in Fig. 1. This topology
requires two boost stages (Boost1 and Boost2) to achieve PFC, where the boost induc-
tors are tied directly to the input of the
converter. It also requires a full-wave
rectifier (DA, DB, DC, and DD) to peak-
DA DC L1 charge the common PFC boost capaci-
Boost 1 D1 VBOOST
VIN Isolated DC-DC tance (CBOOST) during initial power up.
85-265 VAC DB DD Converter However, after the boost capacitor has
1.5A Gate Driver
CBOOST been peak-charged and the converter is
Q1
up and running, the power converter will
only have one rectifier diode in the diode
RS
bridge conduction at a time (DA or DB),
L2 instead of the normal two that are con-
Boost 2 D2 ducting in a full-bridge-based topology.
DA, DB, DC, DD = GBU6J
D1, D2, D3 = MURS360T3
This is different from the traditional PFC
CS 1.5A Gate Driver
UCC28061 L1, L2 = 330µH, CTX16-17769R boost, where two bridge rectifier diodes
GDA
PFC Controller Q2 Q1, Q2 = IRFB11N50APbF are always conducting. This innovative
ZCDA PHB
CBOOST = technique improves efficiency by remov-
2X (100µF, EKXG451ELL101MM40S)
ing the conduction losses of one rectifier
diode, which improves overall system
Fig. 1. A semi-bridgeless PFC pre-regulator requires two boost stages to achieve power factor correction. efficiency.

28 Power Electronics Technology | July 2009 www.powerelectronics.com

 ⎜ ⎟
⎛ L × IP I ⎞
× LRMS ⎟ = 2 × ⎜
L × IP 2 ⎟ = 2 × ⎜ L × IP × 2 ⎟
WaAcS = 2 × ⎜ × ⎜ ⎟ (2)
⎝ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
pfcpre-regulators

WaAcS ≥ 2 × WaAc T (3)

⎛ IP ⎞
⎛ L × IP ILRMS ⎞ ⎜ L × I P 2 ⎟
⎛I⎞ ⎛I⎞
2
I2
2
WaAcT = ⎜ × ⎟=⎜ × ⎟ (1) PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVED = ⎜ ⎟ R + ⎜ ⎟ R = R (4)
⎝ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ ⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠ 2
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Semi-bridgeless PFC does not come

free. It makes the design more complex PCONDUCTION _ TRADITIONAL = I 2 R (5)
than traditional solutions, and ⎛ penalizes IP 0.5 ⎞ ⎛ IP ⎞
⎜ ⎟
the ⎛ L × IP size.
inductor’s I
× LRMSYou
L × IP
⎞ can⎜ observe
× this 2 ⎟ = 2 × ⎜ L × IP × 2 ⎟
WaAc S = 2× ⎜ ⎟ = 2× ⎜ ⎟ (2)
⎝ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟
by studying the inductor area ⎜ product ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ PCONDUCTION _ TRADITIONA L
of a traditional PFC boost pre-regulator = PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVE D (6)
(WaAcT), versus the total area prod- 2
uct of both semi-bridgeless PFC pre-
regulatorWaAc (WaAc ) inductors. Magnetic (3)
S ≥S 2 × WaAc T ⎛ IP ⎞ ⎛ IP IP ⎞ ⎛ IP ⎞
designers use area product calculations ⎜ L× 2 ILRMS ⎟ ⎜ L×
2 2 × 2 ⎟ 1 ⎜ L× I 2 ⎟
(7)
WaAc I = 2 × ⎜ × ⎟ = 2×⎜ × ⎟ = ×⎜ P
× ⎟
to select magnetic cores based on 2
wind- 2 ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ 2 ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟
ingP area (Wa) and core cross-sectional ⎛I⎞ ⎛I⎞ I2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎜
⎝
⎟
⎠
⎜
⎝
⎟
⎠
CONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVED = ⎜ ⎟ R + ⎜ ⎟ R = R (4)
area (Ac). Eq. 1 to 3 calculate ⎝ 2 ⎠the total ⎝2⎠ 2
inductor area products for semi-bridge- 1
WaAc I = × WaAcT (8)
less and traditional PFC pre-regulators, 2
where L is the PFC boost inductor2
and IP is the Ppeak PFC _input
CONDUCTION current.
TRADITIONAL =I R (5)
ILRMS is the PFC inductor RMS cur-
rent. Variable CD represents the cur-
PCONDUCTION
rent density for _which
TRADITIONAthe
L inductor(s)
= PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVE D (6)
is designed. Variable 2 ∆B represents the
change in flux density present in the
inductor(s). Ku represents the magnetic
IP ⎛ IP IP ⎞ ⎛ IP ⎞
window ⎛winding efficiency.
⎞
⎜ L× 2 ILRMS ⎟ ⎜ L×
2 2 × 2 ⎟ 1 ⎜ L× I 2 ⎟
(7)
WaAc IFrom
= 2 × ⎜ these×equations ⎟ = for
2 × ⎜ area prod-× ⎟ = ×⎜ P
× ⎟
⎜ Δ B Ku × Cd ⎟ ⎜ Δ B Ku × Cd ⎟ 2 ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟
uct you can ⎝ see that the⎠ total⎜⎝ area prod- ⎟⎠ ⎜
⎝
⎟
⎠
uct for the semi-bridgeless PFC induc-
⎛ IP ⎞
tors (WaAcS) is 1roughly 1.414⎜ times ⎟
⎛ L × I I ⎞ L × I 2
WaAc
larger WaAc
than T = the
= ×× WaAc
⎜ I area
P LRMS
product T⎟ = ⎜ (8)
(WaAc P
T)
× ⎟ (1)
2
⎝ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟
of a traditional PFC pre-regulator. ⎜ The ⎟
⎝ ⎠
area product equations show that the
total magnetic volume of the semi-brid-
geless PFC are at least 1.4 times greater
than a traditional PFC pre-regulator ⎛ IP 0.5 ⎞ ⎛ IP ⎞
that uses ⎜ ⎟
⎛ La× Isingle I boost ⎞ stageLfor × I P PFC. 2 ⎟ ⎜ L×I 2 ⎟
WaAcS = 2 × ⎜ P
× LRMS ⎟ = 2 × ⎜ × = 2 ×⎜ P
× ⎟ (2)
⎝ ΔB (See Ku × Cd Eq.
⎠ 1) ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
(See Eq. 2 on p.30)

WaAcS ≥ 2 × WaAc T (3)

Interleaved PFC
2 2
The interleaved PFC pre-regulator
⎛I⎞ ⎛I⎞ I2
PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVED = ⎜ ⎟ R + ⎜ ⎟ R = R (4)
approach interleaves two boost ⎝ 2 ⎠ stages.
⎝2⎠ 2
This control technique requires that
two power-factor-corrected boost
stages operate 180° out-of-phase. The
many benefits PCONDUCTION
of this _topology = I2R
TRADITIONALhave (5)

www.powerelectronics.com
P July 2009 | Power Electronics Technology 29
CONDUCTION _ TRADITIONA L
= PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVE D (6)
2
 pfcpre-regulators

D3 made it very popular. A major ben-

DC efit is the input- and output-inductor
DA
VIN ⎛
Phase
L1
1 D1 I P ⎞V ripple-current cancellation. If designed
85-265 VAC DB
⎛ L × IP ILRMS ⎞ ⎜ L × I P 2 ⎟ BOOST Isolated DC-DC correctly, it can reduce total boost induc-
WaAcT = ⎜ DD× ⎟ = ⎜ × ⎛ ⎟ I P(1)Converter
⎞
⎝ ΔB Ku × Cd
1.5A Gate⎠ Driver
⎜ ΔB Ku ×⎜ Cd ⎟ ⎟ tor and/or EMI magnetic volume. The
⎛ L × I ⎜ I ⎞ L × I
⎟ 2
I P ⎟⎞
RZA WaAcT = ⎜ P
×⎝ LRMS
Q1 ⎟ = ⎜
⎛ ⎠ ×CBOOST
P
(1) output-inductor ripple-current cancel-
⎝⎛ LΔ×BIP KuILRMS × Cd ⎠⎞ ⎜⎜ LΔ×BI P Ku ×2Cd ⎟⎟
WaAcT = ⎜ × ⎟ = ⎜⎜ × ⎟⎟ (1) lation reduces the boost-capacitor RMS
CZA
L1 ⎝ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠ ⎝⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠⎟ current, which can lead up to a 25%
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ reduction in capacitor volume. Do not
⎛L2 I 0.5 ⎞ ⎛ IP ⎞ confuse this with the amount of boost
⎜ PhaseP 2 D2 ⎟
L × IP GDA
⎛ZCDA ILRMS ⎞ ⎜ L × I 2 ⎟ = 2 × ⎜ L × IP × 2 ⎟ capacitance the design requires for hold-
WaAcS = 2 × ⎜ 2 ⎛ ⎟ (2) I P
P
× ⎟ = × × ⎛ ⎜
IP , D0.5B ⎞ , D = GBU6J ⎞
ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠1.5A Gate B Ku × Cd D B, D
⎝ UCC28061 ⎜ ΔDriver
I ⎜ ⎟ A⎜ Δ ⎟C Ku D × Cd ⎟
⎜ L ⎟× I ⎟ up. This is typically determined by hold-
PFC Controller ⎛ L × I ⎜ ⎞ ⎜⎛ L ×
⎟ I D1, ⎜ 2
D2, D3
⎟⎞ = MURS360T3 2
WaAcS = 2 × ⎜ P
×⎝ LRMS
⎟ = 2Q2
× ⎠ × P⎝ P
I 0.5 = 2 × ⎜⎛ ⎠ × P
I P ⎟⎞ (2)
ZCDB GDB ⎝⎛ LΔ×BI Ku I × Cd ⎠ ⎜⎜ Δ B Ku
L × I P L1, L2 × Cd ⎟⎟
2 = 330µH,
Δ B Ku ×
CTX16-17769R 2 ⎟⎟
⎜
⎜ Cd up time and output power. Fig. 2 shows
RZB WaAcS = 2 × ⎜ P ⎞
× LRMS ⎟ = 2 ×⎜⎜ × Q1, Q2 ⎟⎟ = 2 ×⎜⎝⎜ L × I P × ⎟⎟ (2)
⎝ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠ ⎝⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd=⎠⎟IRFB11N50APbF ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟
⎠ a functional schematic of an interleaved
⎜ CIBOOST =⎟ ⎜ ⎟
L2
20.5k ⎛ ⎝ P ⎞ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ PFC pre-regulator.
2X (100µF, EKXG451ELL101MM40S)
CZB
WaAc ⎛ L ×2I×P WaAc
I ⎞ ⎜(3)
L × IP 2 ⎟ Interleaved PFC pre-regulators dis-
WaAc =≥
T S ⎜ × LRMST ⎟ = ⎜ × ⎟ (1)
⎝ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎠ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ tribute conduction losses amongst
WaAcS ≥ 2 × WaAc ⎜ (3) ⎟
⎝ T ⎠ two PFC boost stages (PCONDUCTION_
I(3)
2 2 2
WaAcS ⎛≥ conduction
⎞2 × WaAcI I
⎛ ⎞ T between two boost stages. ⎛ IP
Fig. 2. Interleaved
P PFC pre-regulators distribute
=
CONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVED R + losses
⎜ ⎟R= R
⎜ ⎟ 2 (4) INTERLEAVED). A designer can reduce ⎜ L× I
⎝2⎠⎝ 2⎛⎠I ⎞ 2⎛ I ⎞2 I2 conduction ⎛ L ×by
losses IP up Ito 50% ⎞ with an 2
WaAcT = ⎜ × LRMS
⎟=⎜
P
×
PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVED = ⎜ ⎟ 2 R + ⎜ ⎟ 2 R = 2 R (4) ΔB Ku ×versus
⎝ approach Cd ⎠ a⎜ tradi-
ΔB Ku × Cd
⎝P⎛ 2I0.5
⎠⎞ ⎞ ⎝⎛ 2I ⎛⎠⎞ I2 I P ⎞ interleaved PFC ⎜
⎛ I
PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVED
⎜ = ⎜ ⎟ ⎟R + ⎜ ⎜⎟ R = R ⎟ (4) ⎝
tional single-stage boost. This is evident
⎛ L × IP I ⎞
× LRMS ⎟ = 2 × ⎜
L × IP 2
× ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎟ = ⎝2 × ⎜⎠
2 L × IP × 2 2 ⎟
WaAcS = 2 × ⎜ (2) by studying the simplified conduction-
⎝ ΔPB Ku × Cd ⎠ ⎜ ΔB Ku
= 2 × Cd ⎟
IR ⎟ ⎜ ΔB(5) Ku × Cd ⎟
oloughlin-Fig
⎜
CONDUCTION _ TRADITIONAL 2 july2009 ⎜ ⎟ loss equations for an interleaved PFC
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
PCONDUCTION _ TRADITIONAL = I 2 R (5) boost, and a traditional single⎛ PFC pre- ⎞
IP 0.5
PCONDUCTION _ TRADITIONAL = I 2 R (5) regulator (P ILRMS ⎞
⎛ LCONDUCTION_TRADITIONAL
× IP
⎜
L × I ). 2 ⎟
WaAcS = 2 × ⎜ ⎟ = 2×⎜ ⎟ = 2×
P
PCONDUCTION _ TRADITIONA L ⎝(See
ΔB Eq.
×
Ku4× on
Cd ⎠p. 29)
×
⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟
WaAc = PCONDUCTION(3)_ INTERLEAVE D
≥ 2 × WaAc (6) ⎜ ⎟
2 PSCONDUCTION T
_ TRADITIONA L
⎝ ⎠
= PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVE D (6) (See Eq. 5)
PCONDUCTION2_ TRADITIONA L
2 = PCONDUCTION
2 2 (6)
2⎛ L ×⎛⎜ IIP ⎟⎞ R I+P ⎛⎜ I⎞ ⎞⎟ R ⎛= I R IP (4)⎞
_ INTERLEAVE D
PCONDUCTION
⎛
L ×
IP
_ INTERLEAVED⎜ =
⎞
⎟ ⎜ (See Eq. 6)
WaAc I = 2×
⎜ 2 × LRMS = 2 × ⎜ ⎝ 2
I ⎟ 2 ⎠× 2 × 2⎝ 2⎟ ⎠= × ⎜ 2 P ×
1 L × I 2 ⎟ (7) WaAcS ≥ 2 × WaAc T (3)
⎜ ⎟I IP 2 I ⎟ IP
⎜ ΔB Ku × ⎛Cd ΔB ⎞ Ku × ⎛Cd ⎞ ⎛
⎜ ΔP B ⎟ Ku × Cd
⎞
⎜ L ×⎟ 2 ⎜⎜ ILRMS ⎟ ⎜ L ×⎟⎟ ⎟
P
⎜2 × 2 ⎜
1 L ⎟× IP ⎟
⎝ WaAc I = 2 × ⎜⎛ ⎠ I × ⎝ 2
⎟⎞ = 2 × ⎜⎛ ⎠ IP × ⎝ IP ⎟⎞ = × ⎜⎛ ⎠ × I2P ⎟⎞ Interleaving PFC pre-regulators can
(7)
⎜⎜ LΔ×B2 KuILRMS ⎜⎜ LΔ×B
P
× Cd ⎟⎟ Ku × Cd ⎟⎟ 21 ⎜⎜ LΔ×BI Ku × Cd ⎟⎟ reduce total boost-inductor magnetic
⎛ I ⎞ vol-⎛ I ⎞
2 2
WaAc I = 2 ×⎝⎜ × ⎠⎟ = 2 ×⎜⎝⎜
2 × 2 × 2 ⎟⎟ = ×⎜⎜ P 2 ⎟
⎠ 2 ⎝ ΔB × Ku × Cd ⎠⎟
(7) I
Δ B Ku × Cd Δ2B Ku × Cd ume. PTo illustrate this, =
let’s ⎜study
⎟ R +
the
⎜ ⎟ R=
P1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
=I R ⎟ ⎜
(5) ⎟ CONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVED
⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠ 2
WaAc I = CONDUCTION
×⎝ WaAcT_ TRADITIONAL ⎠(8) ⎜⎝ ⎟
⎠
⎜
⎝
⎟
⎠ total inductor area product of both induc-
2 1
WaAc
Additional = × WaAc
ZCD Circuitry
I T (8) Circuitry Already tors (WaAcI) used in an interleaved PFC
12V 21 Present in Interleaved
pre-regulator versus the total area prod-
ZCDA
P WaAc I = × WaAcT (8) Pre-Regulator
CONDUCTION _ TRADITIONA L2
= PCONDUCTION _ INTERLEAVERZA (6) uct of a traditional PFC pre-regulator’s
PCONDUCTION 2
D _ TRADITIONAL = I R
2 boost inductor (WaAcT). The total area
20.5k L1
QB DA product of the interleaved approach is
half the total area product of a traditional
⎛ RAIP
L×
RB ⎞ ⎛ IP IP ⎞ ⎛ IP ⎞ PCONDUCTION _ TRADITIONA L
⎜100k I100k ⎟ ⎜ L× ⎟ 1 ⎜ L× I ⎟ PFC boost inductor. In practice= the total _ INTERLE
PCONDUCTION
WaAc I = 2 × ⎜ 2 × LRMS
⎟ = 2×⎜
2 × 2 × 2
⎟ = ×⎜ P
× 2
⎟ (7) 2 for both inductors
⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ 2 ⎜ RZB
ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ boost-inductor volume
⎝ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
20.5k for an interleaved PFC pre-regulator can
L2
CZA QA QC DB be up to 32% ⎛
smaller
I than
⎞
the⎛ inductor
IP IP ⎞
22pF 1
WaAc I = × WaAcT (8) volume of a⎜ Ltraditional
× P
2 × LRMS = 2boost
I PFC
⎟ ⎜ L ×induc-
2 2× 2 ⎟ = 1 ×
WaAc I = 2 × ⎜ ⎟ × ⎜ × ⎟
2 tor. ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ ⎜ ΔB Ku × Cd ⎟ 2
⎝ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟
(See Eq. 7) ⎝ ⎠
QA=QB=QC=2N2222 DA=DB=1N4148
1
WaAc I = × WaAcT (8)
2
Fig. 3. Additional semi-bridgeless PFC circuitry uses transition-mode zero-current detection in each inductor.

30 Power Electronics Technology | July 2009 www.powerelectronics.com

Interleaved and
semi-bridgeless PFC Benefits
Both solutions offer system effi-
ciency benefits. The semi-bridgeless
PFC removes half the bridge recti-
fier’s losses, while the interleaved PFC
pre-regulator distributes the power to
reduce the pre-regulators conduction
losses by half. To evaluate efficiency
improvements over traditional PFCs,
a 300-W transition-mode interleaved
PFC pre-regulator was modified to
work as a 150-W transition-mode
semi-bridgeless PFC pre-regulator and
a single-stage traditional 150-W transi-
tion-mode boost. Then the efficiencies
of the three were evaluated and com-
pared at a load from 30 W to 150 W.
Achieving the constant on-time of
the interleaved transition-mode PFC
pre-regulator as presented in Fig. 2
in the transition-mode semi-bridgeless
application in Fig. 1 requires the addi-
tional circuitry presented in Fig. 3 for
zero current detection in each inductor.
This circuitry can be used with most
single-stage constant-on-time transition- At 150 W, where conduction losses be more efficient than a traditional
mode PFC controllers in a semi-bridge- dominate, the traditional PFC is least single-stage PFC boost pre-regulator.
less transition-mode PFC pre-regulator. efficient. The semi-bridgeless PFC was However, the semi-bridgeless PFC
The graph in Fig. 4 reflects effi- roughly 0.7% more efficient at full load total inductor volume will be at least
ciency data for traditional-PFC, semi- compared to the traditional PFC. The 1.4 times greater than the traditional
bridgeless-PFC and interleaved-PFC interleaved PFC is 1.3% more efficient PFC boost inductor, which will heavily
pre-regulators. To keep the compari- at maximum load than the traditional penalize the pre-regulators power den-
son fair, each FET was driven with a pre-regulator, and 0.5% more efficient sity. The semi-bridgeless PFC offered
discreet 1.5-A gate driver to ensure than the semi-bridgeless PFC. the greatest light-load efficiency.
identical rise and fall times. The graph The semi-bridgeless PFC pre-reg- However, at maximum load where
shows how at lighter loads, traditional ulator, in my evaluation, proves to conduction losses dominate and heat
and semi-bridgeless PFC pre- needs to be dissipated, the
Vin = 115V
regulators are more efficient 95.5% interleaved PFC pre-regulator
than the interleaved PFC is the most efficient. The
95.0%
because driving two FETs at interleaved PFC pre-regulator
lighter loads—where switch- 94.5% offers many benefits over
ing losses are dominant—is both the semi-bridgeless and
Efficiency

94.0%
less efficient. The interleaved traditional PFC topologies. It
93.5%
PFC’s light-load efficiency can can be designed for the high-
be improved by turning off a 93.0% Interleaved PFC Efficiency est power densities by reduc-
Traditional PFC Efficiency
phase under light-load condi- 92.5% Semi-Bridgeless Efficiency ing total inductor and EMI
tions, resulting in a light-load magnetic volume, as well as
92.0%
efficiency similar to a tradi- 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 capacitor volume when com-
Output Power (W)
tional pre-regulator. The semi- pared to a traditional PFC.
bridgeless PFC light-load effi- Fig. 4. PFC pre-regulator efficiency comparison for the pre-regulator operating
References
ciency is roughly 0.5% higher as a traditional PFC pre-regulator, semi-bridgeless PFC pre-regulator, and an 1. www.ti.com/pfc.
than a traditional PFC. interleaved PFC pre-regulator.

oloughlin-Fig 4 july2009
www.powerelectronics.com July 2009 | Power Electronics Technology 31