Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ultimate Switching: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Switch Timing Control in Power
Electronics and Drives
P. T. Krein, DirectorGrainger Center for Electric Machinery
and ElectromechanicsDept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
2
Outline
• Fundamentals: power electronics control at its basic level
• Motivation• False starts and model-limited control• Small-signal examples• Ultimate formulation• Geometric control examples
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3
Fundamentals
• In any power electronic circuit or system, control can be expressed in terms of the times at which switches operate.
• The fundamental challenge is to find switching times for each device.
• Example:– For each switch in a converter, find switching
times that best address a set of constraints.– This is an optimal control problem of a sort.– Might represent this with a switching function q(t).
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
4
Fundamentals
• The general problem is daunting, so we simplify and address switch timing indirectly.– Averaging (address duty ratio rather than q)– PWM (use d as the actuation, not just the control)– Sigma-delta (make one decision each period
based only on present conditions)– Other approaches
• We are researching to try and identify ways to address the timing questions more directly.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
5
Motivation
• We believe that a new and more fundamental consideration of a switch timing framework has strong potential benefits.
• Motivated by our work on switching audio– Showed that sine-triangle PWM, used as a basis
for audio amplifiers, provides nearly unlimited fidelity.
• Motivated by past work on geometric and nonlinear control– Performance can be achieved in power converters
that is unreachable with averaging approaches.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
6
False Starts
• Many argue that space-vector modulation (SVM) gets more directly at switch timing.
• In fact, SVM addresses duty ratios and yields (at best) exactly the same result as a PWM process. It is usually worse because uniform sampling is involved.
• Small-signal analysis methods are even less direct.
• Sliding-mode controls “confine” the switching without getting to the timing challenge.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
7
Space Vectors in Time Domain
• Space vector modulation
• Third-harmonic injection sine-triangle PWM
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
Mod
ulat
ion
and
refe
renc
e si
gnal
s
0 60 120 180 240 300 36001234567
Time (angle)Sector boundaries
Switch periodboundaries
Samplinginterval
Ideal phase a
Sw
itch
sta
te
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
Mod
ulat
ing
sign
als,
thir
d-ha
rmon
ic in
ject
ion
0 60 120 180 240 300 36001234567
Time (angle)
Sw
itch
sta
te
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
8
Model-Limited Control
• Many control methods used in today’s switching power converters are limited by the models of the systems.
• “Model-limited control” is an important barrier to improvement of converters.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
9
Model-Limited Control
• Any type of PWM implies switchingthat takes place much faster thansystem dynamics.
• Dc-dc converters use controllersdesigned based on averaging.
• We often learn that bandwidths arelimited to a fraction of the switching rate.
• We finally have the tools to interpret this rigorously.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
10
Model-Limited Control
• Distortion in the low-frequency band can be computed as a function of switching frequency ratio.
• Distortion must be at least -40 dB (better -60 dB) to justify control loop design.
• Based on natural sampling:Frequency ratio In-band distortion
5 -9 dB7 -42 dB9 -70 dB11 -110 dB13 -154 dB15 -201 dB 10-10
• This is consistent with signal arguments that yield 2as the minimum ratio and “rules of thumb” about a ratio of 10 for best results.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
11
Model-Limited Control
• These models are convenient and useful, but do not use the full capability of a conversion circuit.
• We gave up a factor of 10 on dynamic performance in exchange for precision.
• Consider an example:– Small-signal methods and models are powerful
tools for analysis and design.– They can only go so far toward the analysis of
large-signals circuits and disturbances.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
12
Small-Signal Response Examples
• Take a dc-dc converter, with a well-designed feedback control. Explore its response.
• In this case, a known sinusoidal disturbance is applied at the line input.
• Its frequency is 5% of the switching rate.• Its magnitude is 10%.• The controller is adjusted to cancel line
variation completely – the duty ratio tracks and cancels the disturbance based on small-signal analysis.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
13
Buck Converter
• In this example, a “feedforward” compensation is used to eliminate changes caused by line variation.
VIN
iIN
vOUT
L IOUT
VOUT
#2
#1
RLOAD
time
v (t)
Volta
ge (V
), cu
rrent
(A)
(t)i
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
14
Example Dc-Dc Converter Problem
• 10% disturbance around 80% reference value.• Frequency is 1/20 of switching (e.g. 5 kHz on 100 kHz).
1.2
1.1
trip j k( )
s3lev j k m( )
ref j m( )
20480 j
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
15
Compensated PWM Output
• Filter time constant about 1/10 of switching.
0 500 1000 1500 20000.5
0
0.5
Current
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
16
Result?
• Is the disturbance rejected or not?– Yes and no.
• Does this controller achieve the requested bandwidth?– In fact, the controller is completely eliminating
linear aspects of the disturbance.– But the output ripple has features that may not be
preferred.• Now, ignore small signal limits.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
17
Example Dc-Dc Converter Problem
• 10% disturbance around 80% reference value.• Frequency is 3/4 of switching.
1.2
1.1
trip j k( )
s3lev j k m( )
ref j m( )
40960 j
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
18
Output Ripple
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 400010
5
0
5
10
s3iiii
iii
Current
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
19
Result?
• In several ways, the result is the same, although filtering is less effective because of the higher frequency.
• There is an aliasing effect (but there was previously as well).
• The disturbance frequency does not appear in the output.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
20
Quick Performance Check
• Hysteresis control instead, 150 kHz disturbance.
0 10 20 30 40 502
4
6
8
10
12
Time (us)
Vol
tage
Line input
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
21
Hysteresis Method
• Now the ripple is tied only to the switching rate.
• The disturbance has no noticeable influence on the output.
• This is true even though the disturbance is faster than the switching frequency!
• Does this mean the converter has a “bandwidth” greater than its switching frequency?
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
22
Comments
• “Frequency response” and “bandwidth” imply certain converter models.
• Physical limits are more fundamental:– When should the active switch operate to provide
the best response?– How soon can the next operation take place?– How fast can the converter slew to make a
change?• Hysteresis controls respond rapidly. This is
an issue of timing flexibility more than of switching frequency.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
23
Consideration of Disturbance Timing
• In a buck converter, any line disturbance while the active switch is on will have a direct and immediate effect at the output.
• No line disturbance will have any effect if it occurs while the active switch is off.
• This means an impulse response cannot be written without a switching function.
VIN
iIN
vOUT
L IOUT
VOUT
#2
#1
RLOAD
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
24
Consideration of Disturbance Timing
• This indicates that the nonlinearity cannot be removed for impulse response.
• “Impulse” is not adequate information to determine the response.
• Average models cannot capture timing issues.• Notice that similar arguments apply to step
responses and others.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
25
The Ultimate Formulation
• A converter has some number of switches.• For each switch, there are
specific times at which adevice should turn on or off.
• The times represent the control action. Selection of the times is the control principle.
• For each switch i, find a sequence of times ti,j that produce the desired operation of the converter.
This image cannot currently be displayed.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
26
The Ultimate Formulation
• A converter with ten switches.
• Time sequences t1,j through t10,j.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
27
The Ultimate Formulation
• This is too generic -- there must be constraints and objectives.
• Example: for a dc-dc converter with one active switch, find the sequence of times ti that yields an output voltage close to a desired reference value.
This image cannot currently be displayed.
t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11 t12 t13
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
28
The Ultimate Formulation
• Example: boost dc-dc converter.
• Find the best time sequence to correct a step load change and maintain fixed output voltage.
VIN
L
VOUT
C R
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
29
The Ultimate Formulation
• Still too generic – no unique solution.• Also limited in utility.• The proposed constraint deals with
steady-state output and only one specific dynamic disturbance.
• There were no constraints on switching rates or other factors.
This image cannot currently be displayed.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
30
The Ultimate Formulation
• More practical: Given an objective that takes into account power loss, output steady-state accuracy, dynamic accuracy, response times, and other desired factors, find a sequence of times that yield an optimum result.
• That is, find a set of times tk that minimizes an objective function.
This image cannot currently be displayed.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
31
• This is a general formulation in terms of a hybrid control problem.
• Unfortunately, with results framed this way there are very limited results about existence of solutions, uniqueness, stability, and other attributes.
• Still very general, but with a well-formed cost function it might even have a solution.
• There is a control opportunity every time a switch operates.
The Ultimate FormulationThis image cannot currently be displayed.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
32
Implications
• For steady-state analysis, this must yield familiar results.
• A dc-dc converter with loss constraints must act at a specific switching frequency with readily calculated duty ratio.
• For dynamic situations, the implications are deeper.– Should a converter operate for a short time at
higher frequency when disturbed?– How do EMI considerations affect times?– Are our models accurate and complete enough?
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
33
Geometric Control Examples
• Dc-dc buck converter, 12 V to 5 V nominal.• L = 200 uH, C = 10 uF, 100 kHz switching.
#2
+
_
+_
R+
_
#1
L
V vin
v
i in I out
outout load
02TT0
v (t)out
vout
V in
time
Volta
ge
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
34
Fixed Duty Ratio
• Steady state, fixed duty ratio.• This shows the inductor current and ten times
the normalized capacitor voltage.• The “best” solution given fixed 100 kHz
switching.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
iL(t)
vout(t) expanded
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
35
Result in State Space
• Same data plotted in state space.
4.99 4.995 5 5.0050.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Capacitor voltage
Indu
ctor
cur
rent
Steady state
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
36
Hysteresis Control
• Alternative: simply switch based on whether the output is above or below 5 V.
• No frequency constraint.
0 20 40 60 80 100 1200.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Hysteresis control on output voltage.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
37
Hysteresis Control
• Same result, in state space.• These controls need timing constraints to
prevent chattering.
4.99 4.995 5 5.0050.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Y
Y2
State space.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
38
Response to Step Line Input
• Line step from 12 V to 15 V at 42 us.• Duty ratio adjusts instantly to the right values.
(This would happen in open-loop SCM.)• Transient in voltage occurs.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000.9
1
1.1
Time (us)
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
39
State Space
• State space plot shows how much the behavior deviates.
4.98 4.99 5 5.01 5.02 5.030.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
iLi
vci
State space
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
40
Same Step – Different Control
• This is a current hysteresis control, with the switch set to turn off at a defined peak and on at a defined valley. Same line step.
0 20 40 60 80 1000.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
Time (us)
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
41
State Space
• The step is cancelled perfectly – essentially in zero time.
4.99 4.995 5 5.0050.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
iLi
vc i
State space
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
42
Boost Converter – A Harder Test
• What about a boost converter step?• Example converter: L = 200 uH, C = 20 uF, 5
V input, 12 V output, 100 kHz switching
VIN
IIN
vin
L iOUT
C R
ILOAD
iC vL
VOUT
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
43
Steady State Behavior
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
iL(t)
vout(t) expanded
11.85 11.9 11.95 12 12.05 12.1 12.152.3
2.35
2.4
2.45
2.5
Capacitor voltage
Indu
ctor
curr
ent
State space
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
44
Step Change Behavior
• Step input from 5 V to 6 V at 42 us.• Very slow transient – even though the duty
ratio values are set to cancel the change.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000
1
2
3
Current
Voltage
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
45
State Space
• Suggests a faster transition is possible.
11.4 11.6 11.8 12 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13 13.21.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Capacitor voltage
Indu
ctor
curr
ent
State space
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
46
Ad Hoc Control
• Short-term overshoot can be used to dramatically speed the response.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Time (us)
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
47
State Space
• Rapid move toward final desired result.
11.8 12 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13 13.21.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Capacitor voltage
Indu
ctor
curr
ent
State space
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
48
Augmented Boost
• Now alter the boost to achieve timing targets.• This control eliminates the transient.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000.5
1
1.5
2
2.5iL(t)
vout(t) expanded
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
49
State Space
• The response never goes outside ripple limits.
11.85 11.9 11.95 12 12.05 12.1 12.151.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Capacitor voltage
Indu
ctor
cur
rent
Start
End
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
50
More General Result
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
51
More General Result
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
52
More General Result
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
53
Research Topics
• Find examples of high-performance converter controls, based on a timing control perspective.
• Develop design methodologies for them.• Formulate sample optimization problems that
address timing control directly.• Seek controls that address system-level
factors.• Seek simplifications that reduce costs with
little (or no) sacrifice in performance.
Grainger Center for Electric Machines and Electromechanics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
54
Conclusion
• The ultimate in power electronics control is to find a sequence of switching times that optimizes a specific objective function.
• Some test cases show that performance far outside the accepted range can be obtained.
• Good ways to specify constraints, quantify the problem, and optimize are issues for research.
• Examples show existence of such solutions.• The objective is to identify and develop control
concepts and methods that use the full physical capability of power electronics.