Modeling and Control of Two dc-dc Convertes Used

in a Resonant Dual Active Bridge

A.J. Marin-Hurtado1 , E.Y. Piedrahita-Echavarria2, A. Escobar-Mejia3
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Program
Universidad Tecnologica de Pereira
Pereira, Colombia
1anaj@utp.edu.co, 2eliana.p95@utp.edu.co, 3andreses1@utp.edu.co

Abstract— The need for controlling the energy more
efficiently has motivated the development of more compact,
modular and efficient power converters such as the Dual
Active Bridge (DAB). This dc-dc converter has been
suggested as an important part of several power
conditioning systems, such as the Solid-State Transformer
(SST) to control the power flow between two power sources.
Several topologies have been suggested to operate more
efficiently the DAB as the switching frequency increases. An
accurate representation of the DAB is required in order to
design the control strategy that regulated the power flow.
In this paper two DAB topologies, named: phase-
controlled CLLC (Capacitor-Inductor-Inductor-
Capacitor) and CLC (Capacitor Inductor Capacitor)
Resonant Dual Active Bridge (RDAB), are studied and
compared. Extensive time-domain simulations are carry
out in order to compare and validate the functionality of
each model under different operating conditions.
Keywords— Resonant Dual Active Bridge, RDAB-CLC, RDAB-
CLLC, State-Space.
I. INTRODUCTION
At present, the population growth has increase the
consumption of goods that negatively impact the environment
and affect the human health. Nowadays approximately 80% of
the world’s energy is being produced by thermal plants, coal
plants and others, which use fossil fuels –as primary energy– to
generate electricity [1], [2]. However, generating electricity
using renewable sources (e.g., solar and wind) is being recently
considered due to their multiple advantages when compared
with conventional generation systems.
Due to the variability of the primary source (i.e., radiation
and wind) renewables are considered non-dispatchable, thus
they can not meet the electricity demand by themselves. To
overcome this problem it is necessary to employ an energy
storage system (e.g., battery bank or ultracapacitor), to meet the
demand requirements. A power electronic converter, operating
in bidirectional mode, acts as interface between the storage
system and a common bus to inject the energy from/to the
energy storage system.
The well-known Dual Active Bridge (DAB) is considered
one of the most versatile and functional bidirectional dc-dc
converters, suitable for application where galvanic isolation is
required. Furthermore, it can be operated at high switching
frequencies (under ZVS and ZVC), which reduces the size of
magnetics and enables its operation at high-voltage high-
current levels [2], [3]. Several bidirectional topologies
(considering a DAB) have been reported in literature for grid-
connected applications. In some cases a series resonant network
is include within the dc-dc converter to minimize the reactive
power required for the converter [4]. Most authors have
concentrated in proposing new modulation schemes [5] for the
DAB and explore its advantages in new applications [6]–[8]. In
[9] and [10] the mathematical models for the resonant DAB
(RDAB), under soft switching, are obtained. The state-space
representation of the RDAB, with a CLLC and CLC networks,
in conjunction with a conventional PI controller are presented
in [11]–[14]. However, a comparative analysis of the RDAB
with the two networks has not been reported yet.
This paper presents a comparison between two resonant
topologies for the DAB: one with CLC and another with CLLC
tuning networks. For both cases the state-space model is used
to design a feedback controller to bring the state variables to the
desired references. The paper is organized as follows: the
mathematical models of the studied converters are provided in
Section II, whereas Section III presents their validation. The
design of a feedback control strategy is given in section IV. The
case study under analysis and conclusions are given in Sections
V and VI respectively.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF THE STUDIED
CONVERTERS
A. RDAB-CLLC
The RDAB-CLLC shown in Fig. 1a consist of two full-
bridge converters connect through a tuned CLLC network
operating as a filter. Using the equivalent circuit in Fig.1b and
with the Kirchhoff’s second law, it is possible to get:
− + + + + =0
(1)
− + + + + =0
where and are induced voltage defined as:

978-1-5386-8372-9/18/$31.00 ©2018

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on June 30,2021 at 16:57:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Primary full Secundary full
bridge bridge 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ss1 Ss3
SP1 SP3 0 0 0 0 0 0
i1 C1 C2 i2 =
VDC2 0 0 0 0 − 0 − 0
VDC1 v1 L1 L2 v 2 <Ɵ
0 0 0 0 0 − 0 −
n:1
SP2 SP4 Ss2 Ss4 The constants and are defined as:
1 1
= =
(a) (7)
− −
The input vector and state variables vector are defined
respectively as:
=
(8)
=
B. RDAB-CLC
(b) The topology of a RDAB-CLC converter consist of two full-
Fig. 1. Schematic of a RDAB-CLLC (a), and its equivalent circuit (b). The
bridge converters connected through a tuned resonant network,
inductances and have internal resistance of and respectively. comprising , , and , as shown in Fig. 2.a. Usually the
leakage inductance of the transformer ( ) is assumed to be
=− = , (2) zero, however in a practical circuit it could be integrated as part
of the leakage inductance of the transformer [12].
where represents the mutual inductance between the In order to simplify the mathematical analysis, the converter
transformer’s windings, and is defined as: in Fig. 2a is represented by its steady-state ac circuit as shown
= , (3) in Fig. 2b. The output and input of each full-bridge converters,
and respectively, can be represented by the Fourier series
where is the coupling factor.
as follows [12]:
Replacing (2) in (1), and solving for and , it is possible
to get: 4 1 ∅
= cos( ) sin (9)
2
=− + − − − − , …

(4) 4 1 ∅
=− − − − + − = cos( + ) sin (10)
1 1
2
, …
= = ,
where , , , , , and can be written as:

sin (5)
=
cos

where =2 is the switching frequency.

(a)
Considering (5), the state-space model of (4) is represented
in the reference frame as [11]: /
0 − 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 − 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0
A= (6)
− 0 − 0 − − − 0

0 − 0 − − 0 − (b)
− 0 − 0 − 0 − − Fig. 2. Schematic of a RDAB-CLC (a), and its equivalent circuit (b).
0 − 0 − 0 − −

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on June 30,2021 at 16:57:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The ac subsystem has four state-space variables: , , =0
and , and is written as follows: 4
= sin sin ( )
1 2
= = sin cos ( ) for ≥ 0,

= −
where initially = , = = 60 . , are stepped
(11)
−1 1 1 up from to at = 20 . When , are , and
= − − + −
are 66.16 , after = 20 , and are 76.39 ,
1 1
= + − + , is zero because is the reference.
where and are defined as: With the input signals and shown in Fig. 3, the
response of the CLLC and CLC converters in the reference
+ +
= = (12) frame is illustrated in Fig. 4. The magnitude of is calculated
with (16) and represents the input current in the original
Since the state variables are assumed to be sinusoidal at the reference frame.
fundamental frequency, the following equation represent the ac
states: | |= + (16)

sin (13)
=
cos

Considering (13), the state-space model of (11) in the

reference frame is:
1
0 − 0 0 0 0 0
1
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 Fig. 3. y applied to both converters.
0 0 0 − 0 − 0
1 1
0 0 0 0 0
=
1
− 0 − 0 − − 0
−1
0 0 − − 0 −

0 0 − 0 − 0 − −
(14)
0 0 0 0 −

1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (a)
− 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 −
0 0

=
=

III. MODEL VALIDATION

In order to compare the models of the RDAB CLLC and the
CLC described in (6) and (14) respectively, time-domain
simulations are carried out in open loop. For the analysis and (b)
Fig. 4. (blue) and (red) currents for the CLLC (a)
are: and CLC (b) respectively.
4
= sin (15)
2

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on June 30,2021 at 16:57:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Figures 5a and 5b show the currents and | | for both
converters. It is observed that when the input voltage changes
at = 20 , the magnitude of the current presents a 21.17%
and a 16.53% overshoot for the CLLC and CLC converters
respectively. The steady state is reached in about 3 and 5
for both cases.
IV. RDAB STATE FEEDBACK CONTROLLER
In order to validate and compare the two models when a state Fig. 6. State feedback control scheme for both models with an observer.
feedback controller is used, the control scheme presented in Fig. TABLE I. PARAMETERS FOR THE CLC AND CLLC CONVERTERS
6 is considered. Since not all the state variables are accessible in VALUE
a real implementation, an asymptotic observer is designed to PARAMETER
CLLC CLC
estimate the unknown variables. The inputs for the observer are
( ) 60 60
the control signal and the sensed state variables . The outputs
( ) 60 60
are the estimated state vector = ̂ , ̂ and , which is the
( ) 50 50
observed perturbation. A feedback gain, is used to relocate
( ) 100 100
the close loop poles, and is calculated using the LQR approach. (Ω) 0.1 0.1
Finally, is the direct gain that allows the system to follow the (Ω) 0.04 0.04
desired reference. (Ω) 0.06 0.06
V. CASE STUDY ( ) 50 50
(μ ) 100 100
To validate the two derived models and the controller design, (μ ) 100 100
the mathematical models are represented in the state-space and (μ ) - 100
simulated with a time-step of 100 μs. The parameters for the two 0.65 -
models are listed in table I. The simulation results present the - 1
behavior of the current , using both models when the reference
changes from 10 A to 20 A at = 0.4 , as indicated in Fig
7 and Fig. 8.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)
Fig. 5. The currents and | | for the CLLC (a) and Fig. 7. RDAB (a), and (b) currents.
CLC (b) converters in open loop.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on June 30,2021 at 16:57:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

parameters such as magnetization inductance and internal
resistance. As a general conclusion, the presented controller
shown better effect on the CLLC converter.
Master’s Program of La Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira to
partially fund this research.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. in the stationary reference frame for the CLLC converter (a)
and the CLC converter (b).
As shown in Fig. 7a and in Fig. 7b, with the control
scheme presented in Fig. 6, the current in the CLC model
reaches the steady state in about 0.3 and have an overshoot
of 39.2%. The current reaches the steady state at about
0.3 and have an overshoot of 23.25%. In the CLLC
converter, the current reaches the steady state in about
0.12 and have an overshoot of 40.1%. The current
reaches the steady state in about 0.12 and have an overshoot
of 14.5%. As indicated in Fig. 8, in the stationary reference
frame, in the CLC model reaches the steady state at
approximately 0.25 and have an overshoot of 18.30%. In
the CLLC converter, reaches steady state in approximately
0.2 and have an overshoot of 14.35%.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
As shown in Fig 5a and Fig 5b the overshoot for the
RDAB CLLC model was 4.64% less than that the overshoot for
the RDAB CLC model in open loop. In addition the time
difference for both models to reach the steady state was 2 , Power Elecronics vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 7297–7310, December, 2015.
where the CLLC model got stabilized faster. As shown in Fig.
8a and Fig. 8b, the overshoot for the RDAB CLLC model was
3.95% less than the overshoot for the RDAB CLC. The
difference in time to reach the steady state was 0.5 , being
the lowest the one for the CLLC. In addition, it was shown that
when a disturbance occurred in the system, the controller in the
CLLC model responded in 0.2 while the CLC responded in
1.2 . Comparing the results, it was observed that the CLC
model presented slow dynamics to reach the steady state and a
larger overshoot. In addition its response in the presence of a
disturbance was slow and the system presented several
oscillations, however the RDAB CLLC converter presented a
fast dynamic. This happens because the CLC model considers
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors are thankful with the Electrical Engineering
REFERENCES
[1] International Energy Agency, “Key World Energy Statistics,”. [Online].
Available:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorl
d2017.pdf. [Accessed: August 05, 2018].
[2] F.R. Pazheri, AA. Al-Arainy, M.F. Othman, N.H. Malik, “Global
Renawable Electricity Potencitial,” in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE GCC
Conference and Exhibition, pp. 59–63, November, 2013.
[3] G. Ortiz, H. Uenura, D. Bortis, J.W. Kolar, O. Apeldoom, “Moldeing of
Soft-Switching Losses of IGBTs in High-Power High-Efficiency Dual-
Active-Bridge DC/DC Converters,” in IEEE Tansactions on Electron
Devices, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 587–597, February, 2013.
[4] R.P. Twiname, D.J. Thrimawithana, U.K. Madawala, C.A. Baguley, “A
New Resonant Bidirectional dc-dc Converter Topology,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 4733–4740,
September, 2014.
[5] F. liu, X. Sun, J. Feng, J. Wu, X. Li, “The Improved Dual Active Bridge
Converter with a Modified Phase Shift and Variable Frequency Control,”
in Proceedings of the Applied Power Electronics Conference and
Exposition, (APEC-2018), pp. 814–819, March, 2018.
[6] S. Li, C.C. Mi, “Wireless Power Transfer for Electric Vehicle
Applications,” IEEE Transactions of Emerging and Selected Topics in
Power Electronics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 4–17, March, 2015.
[7] D.V. Corporation, “Performance Analysis and Modeling of High
Efficiency Medium Power Resonant Dual Active Bridge Converter for
Wireless Power Transfer,” in Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International
Conference on Power Electronics, Intelligent Control and Energy
Systems, (ICPEICES), pp. 1–6, February, 2017.
[8] R. Friedemann, F. Krismer, J. W. Kolar, “Design of a minimum weight
dual active bridge converter for an airborne wind turbine system,” in
Proceedings of the 27th IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and
Exposition (APEC-2012), pp. 509–516, March, 2012.
[9] R. Twiname, W. L. Malan, J. Minogue, D.J. Thrimawithana, U. K.
Madawala, C. Baguley, “A Novel Dual Active Bridge Topology with a
Tuned CLC Network,” in ICIT, in Proceedigns of the 2014 IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Technology, (ICIT-2014), pp.
895–900, March, 2014.
[10] Y. Zhang, P. Sen, “DQ Models for Resonant Converters,” in
Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Annual Power Electronics Specialists
Conference, (PESC-2004), pp. 1749–1753, June, 2004.
[11] W.L. Malan, S. Member, “Modeling and Control of a Resonant Dual
Active Bridge with a Tuned CLLC Network,” IEEE Transactions on
[12] W.L. Malan, D.J. Thrimawithana, D.M. Vilathgamuwa, G. Walker, U.K.
Madawala, “Modeling and Control of a CLC Resonant Dual Active
Bridge,” in Proceedings of the Australasian Universities Power
Engineering Conference (AUPEC-2014), pp. 1–6, October, 2014.
[13] R.P. Twiname, D.J. Thrimawithana, U.K. Madawala, C.A. Baguley, “A
New Resonant BiDirectional DC-DC Converter Topology,” in IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 29, issue 9, pp. 4733–4740,
November, 2013.
[14] J.H. Jung, H.S. Kim, M.H. Ryu, J.W. Baek, “Design Methodology of
Bidirectional CLLC Resonant Converter for high-frequency isolation of
dc distribution systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
vol. 28, issue. 4, pp. 1741–1755, August, 2013.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYA. Downloaded on June 30,2021 at 16:57:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.