Local Control of Multiple Module DC-DC Converters

Pradeep S. Shenoy and Philip T. Krein

Grainger Center for Electric Machinery and Electromechanics Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1406 W. Green St., Urbana, IL 61801, USA Email: pshenoy@ieee.org, krein@illinois.edu

AbstractThis paper introduces local control as applied to multiple module dc-dc converters. Local control is a form of distributed control that emphasizes each modules local information when making basic control decisions. There is no central controller or master controller. The design of simple, modular, and cooperative power converters is a primary motivating factor of this work. The challenges and opportunities of this control paradigm are placed in the context of other approaches. Simulation and experimental results for an input-series, output-parallel converter are included as an example of local control.

I. I NTRODUCTION Multiple module dc-dc converters, including multiphase converters, have demonstrated considerable benets in lowvoltage applications and also represent more complex distributed dc systems. The energy that must be delivered to the load can be divided among the modules to distribute component stress. One typical objective is to make the ratings of each module to be comparatively lower thereby giving more freedom in component selection [1]. Input-series outputparallel (ISOP) or input-parallel output-series (IPOS) congurations are promising for high input to output ratios, allowing conversion in one stage instead of cascading converters in a number of stages, provided suitable controls are employed [2]. Multiple modules can also provide redundancy with possible improvements in reliability, expandability, availability, and maintainability. By interleaving the switching of the modules, the output ripple can decrease considerably. Of course, multiple module converters have drawbacks including parts count, circuit complexity, and control complexity. Most available control methods for modular converters employ either droop control or active sharing [3]. Due to the limited voltage regulation of droop control, active sharing methods have been explored. The usual objective is uniform sharing. Previous research has explored a master-slave approach [4], a democratic scheme [5], frequency-based schemes [6], droop control methods, sensorless current mode (SCM) control [2], and other current mode control approaches. The method in [2] is of particular interest because it results in automatic sharing in some multi-module congurations with limited outside information. A central or supervisory controller for a multi-module conguration simplies control functions such as switch interleaving, provides unambiguous global reference signals, and

tends to keep parts count down by limiting local control hardware. However, centralized control yields single points of failure and requires intensive data exchange to manage control of modules. Distributed control lends itself to a modular design but often requires considerable coordination and communication among the modules in the converter [7], [8]. While communication among modules can be benecial, drawbacks include increased complexity, decreased reliability, relatively slow response to disturbances, synchronization needs, establishment of protocols, error checking, operational interdependency, bandwidth limitations, and other issues. The work presented here seeks distributed controls that reduce or eliminate communication among modules. In the following sections, a control paradigm that emphasizes the use of local information in each module is proposed. To demonstrate local control of multiple module converters, ratings-based load sharing in an ISOP converter with a high conversion ratio is examined in simulations and experimental hardware. II. L OCAL C ONTROL Local control takes the perspective of each module in the converter. Each module becomes an agent, operating within the system. Possible control frameworks for understanding such a system include multi-agent systems and cooperative distributed problem solving [9], [10]. These frameworks are used to describe the interactions in ocks of birds, trafc systems, and robot formations. The aim of local control is to capitalize on the local information of each module in order to increase the independence of each module in a manner that meets global system control objectives. Many agent-based distributed controls require substantial intelligence for each element. There is often much more total system computation involved than would be present in a centralized controller. In this paper, the intent is to avoid complexity as much as possible seeking out control methods that have an inherent tendency to meet global power conversion requirements with minimal local effort or data exchange. The control in [2] is part of the motivation. In that case, the complexity of feedback control for a multi-module ISOP or IPOS converter is actually reduced. The simplied structure leads to converters that are forced to share power by virtue of circuit laws rather than active control as shown in [11]. The intent of the present work is to broaden results like

this: nd control approaches that are deployed on a moduleby-module basis but tend to take actions favorable to the global system. An outline of a locally controlled module is shown in Fig. 1. The three primary sources of information are the input line, the output load, and any internal components of the converter module. Local control algorithms can utilize line or load measurements to determine desired responses. For instance, ltered load information can be used to perform functions like switch interleaving [12] or load sharing [13]. Internal states such as inductor current or certain node voltages are also commonly used to control converter modules. Another option is to add internal components or circuitry that can be used in the control algorithm to either infer global information or replace it.
Fig. 2. ISOP converter with locally controlled modules using resistors for ratings-based load sharing. A global output voltage reference can be provided for closed-loop control.

Fig. 1. Sources of information for a locally controlled converter module. The three primary sources of information are the input source, the output load, and any internal components of the converter module.

that open-loop sensorless current mode (SCM) control of an ISOP push-pull converter is stable if properly congured. To demonstrate ratings-based sharing, a push-pull ISOP converter, as shown in Fig. 2, was tested in simulations and experiments. Each converter module has a front-end set resistor proportional to its intended power rating. These resistors are stacked as a series divider, thus providing a local input voltage reference proportional to the respective power rating. The voltage across the k th modules set resistor is Vs,k = Vin Rs,k n i=1 Rs,i (1)

While an emphasis is placed on locally available information, limited external information can also be used. For example, combined global reference signals may be helpful or necessary to ensure that the modules share a common control objective. Sharing of information among near neighbors can also be useful in operations like switch interleaving. A communication bus can be included for monitoring and conguring modules as desired. Local control does not prohibit external information but seeks to minimize it or at least limit dynamic dependence on it. III. E XAMPLE : R ATINGS - BASED L OAD S HARING IN AN ISOP P USH - PULL C ONVERTER An example application of local control is ratings-based sharing in an ISOP circuit. In this case, modules with a variety of power ratings are interconnected enabling (but not requiring) non-uniform load sharing [14], [15]. The objective is to share power automatically in proportion to the individual ratings. It has been shown that in an ISOP conguration, input voltage sharing is equivalent to output current sharing [16]. Hence, another way of looking at load sharing in ISOP converters is input voltage sharing. In [2], the desire to have input voltage of Vin /n for each of the n modules had the effect of matching the duty ratios of the modules and resulted in uniform output current sharing. It was also shown in [2]

where Rs,k is the k th modules power rating resistor and n is the number of modules. The voltage Vs,k changes as modules are added or removed from the converter. Other components like capacitors or Zener diodes can be placed in parallel with the rating resistor to provide dynamic sharing or voltage reference limits. In this work, no communication among the modules was present, although a global output voltage reference was provided to each module. In the ISOP conguration, the average input current of each module must match. The SCM control will operate in a manner that sets each modules input voltage to the value from the respective divider resistor. Thus, a module with a higher power rating will operate at a higher input voltage, and therefore a higher power, in proportion to its relative set resistor. Lowpower modules enforce low input voltage and low power, and so on. This enables load sharing based on a modules power rating. The standard control law for SCM in a buck-derived converter is vI (t) = G (Vsw Vref )dt (2)
where Vref is either a xed reference in open-loop control or the output of a voltage feedback loop, Vsw is the voltage at the switching node, and G is an integrator gain determined by

Fig. 3. Diagram of SCM control for ratings-based sharing in an ISOP pushpull converter.

the modulation process [17]. The voltage Vsw for a push-pull module is essentially qVin , where q is the sum of the two input-side switching functions. The controller output vI is fed into a conventional, xed-frequency pulse width modulator (PWM) to generate the switching signals. As is typical in current mode control, the carrier function includes a stabilizing ramp. The SCM control law for each push-pull module is therefore given by vI (t) = G (qk Vs,k Vref )dt a (3)

(a) Output voltage

where Vs,k is the voltage across the k th modules power rating resistor and a is the turns ratio of the module. A diagram of this is shown in Fig. 3. If there are n modules and even load sharing is the goal, the desired input voltage for all modules would be Vin /n. The control law for an ISOP push-pull converter with uniform load sharing becomes vI (t) = G (qk Vin Vref )dt na (4)
(b) Inductor currents Fig. 4. Simulated response of three module converter with uniform load sharing to a line step occurring at 16.7 s and a load step occurring at 33.3 s. Part (a) shows output voltage of the ISOP converter and part (b) displays the inductor current of each module.

for the k th module. This is accomplished when the rating resistors in each module have equal resistance (i.e. Rs,1 = Rs,2 = . . . = Rs,n ). IV. R ESULTS To verify the proposed local control scheme, an ISOP pushpull converter with ratings-based load sharing was tested in simulation and experiments. Simulation results focus on three push-pull modules since this setup furnishes the necessary level of detail without making the simulations cumbersome. For physical circuit implementation, six push-pull modules were built with three different power ratings, in pairs rated at 40 W, 20 W, and 10 W. To mimic the voltage requirements of a VRM in a computer server, the nominal conversion of 48 V to 1 V was selected. This demonstrates the converters ability to step the voltage down when there is a high voltage ratio. For the case of even load sharing, a lower input voltage of 30 V was selected. The inductance of the output inductors was proportional to the power rating since each module used the same current ripple percentage specication. The set resistor of each module is weighted according to the power rating of the module and provides an input voltage reference for the local SCM control. Relatively high

values of resistance are used (on the order of 100 k) so that power dissipation through them is kept low. Each module locally implements open-loop SCM control on a separate FPGA. While the controls in this work do not require the computing capabilities of an FPGA, the FPGAs provide an easily congurable controls platform. The base clock for the digital components was 50 MHz in the simulations and 24 MHz in hardware. An 8 bit digital pulse width modulation (DPWM), a 30 bit integrator, and an 12 bit ADC were used. A. Uniform Load Sharing The rst simulation focuses on uniform load sharing among the modules of the ISOP converter. In this case the total input voltage was 30 V and the output voltage was 1 V. The results show equal average input voltages and therefore equal average output currents. A converter with three 10 W modules was

simulated under start-up, line step, and load step conditions. The output voltage and inductor currents are shown in Fig. 4. A line step of 2 V has little effect on the output voltage as seen in Fig. 4 (a). The load step doubles the load and causes the output voltage of the converter to dip to about 0.5 V but it soon recovers. The output capacitance for each module was merely 100 pF. The inductor current waveforms in Fig. 4 (b) exhibit a response time of less than 5 s to the load change. All the modules have uniform average inductor current throughout disturbances in the load or line since their parameters are identical. The input voltages are minimally affected. The key point from these simulations is even load sharing of locally controlled modules with switch interleaving. Experimental results match up quite well with the simulation results of a three module ISOP converter. The modules had rating resistors of equal value. There were, however, some signicant differences in the actual modules themselves. Two modules were originally designed to provide up to 10 W and the third was designed for 20 W. This means that the turns ratio and the inductor were designed differently. Furthermore, since the transformers and inductors were hand wound, they exhibited considerable variation from the design. The effective turns ratio for the two 10 W modules was 1.64 : 1 and 2.13 : 1 while the value for the 20 W module was 5.2 : 1. The inductor of the 20 W module had approximately half the inductance of the other two modules and could respond to load changes more swiftly as a result. The response of the converter to a load step-up and step-down can be seen in Fig. 5. From the results, stable and even load sharing is observed. In steady-state operation before and after the load steps, the output current of every module is equal. As can be expected, the output voltage dips a little during the load step-up and increases during the load step-down. This is characteristic of converters operating with open-loop control. One can also see that one of the modules (the 20 W module) responds much faster to load changes than the other two. As mentioned before, this is due to the lower output inductance of the module designed with a higher power rating. Not only does the 20 W module respond faster, but it seems to overshoot in order to compensate for the other modules that have not reached the new operating point. It is important to note that, in spite of the relatively unintelligent nature of the modules and the wide variation in parameters, the modules work together to appropriately respond to load changes. B. Non-uniform Load Sharing A three module ISOP converter stepping 20 V down to 1 V was simulated to examine non-uniform load sharing. Two modules were rated for 10 W and one module was rated for 20 W. Since the 20 W module has twice the power rating of the other two, it should have twice the input voltage and twice the output current as compared to the 10 W modules. The converter was simulated with load steps up and down and line steps up and down. The output voltage and inductor currents are shown in Fig. 6.

(a) Increase load step

(b) Decrease load step Fig. 5. Response of a locally controlled ISOP converter with uniform sharing to load steps. In (a), the top signal is the output voltage, the middle signal is the total output current, and the bottom signals are output currents of the three modules. In (b), the top signal is the output voltage and the bottom signals are the output currents of each module in the converter.

From the simulation results, one can observe stable load sharing in the presence of both load steps and line steps. The output voltage deviation in the load step is larger than the line step deviation since the simulated load steps are much larger in relative magnitude. The load step-up effectively doubles the load while the line steps are approximately 15 percent of the nominal input voltage. The inductor currents demonstrate swift response to load steps and exhibit the intended uneven load sharing. The average input voltage of each module stays the same during load steps as is expected. The converter response to line steps exhibits small oscillations in the input voltages and inductor currents. These oscillations dampen out if simulated for long enough. They are due to the relatively low impedance that the input capacitor of each module sees at its output. As will be seen in the experimental results, a physical converter does not exhibit

(a) Output voltage, line steps

(b) Output voltage, load steps

continued oscillations in the input voltages. The inductor currents continue to provide uneven load sharing with the correct amount of average current. The output voltage also recovers quickly from the line steps. Non-uniform sharing was experimentally tested with a four module ISOP converter stepping 48 V down to 1 V. This is an example of an operation that might be needed in a computer data center where power is distributed on a 48 V bus and needs to be converted to the 1 V processor level. One 40 W module, one 20 W module, and two 10 W modules were connected together to perform this experiment. Each modules set resistor was weighted in proportion to the power rating of the module. This resulted in an average input voltage of 24 V for the 40 W module, 12 V for the 20 W module, and 6 V for both of the 10 W modules. The modules output inductance was designed based on a percentage ripple specication. Hence, the higher power modules have a lower output inductance. Waveforms showing the response of the converter to load steps are found in Fig. 7. The results for the uneven load sharing case are quite similar to those for the even load sharing case. The modules in the converter demonstrate desired, stable load sharing in response to load steps. The output voltage prole follows that of a typical converter under open-loop SCM control. The output current of each module reaches steady state in approximately 160 s. The total output current in this experiment was about 50 A, as might be expected in a computer servers central processing unit. The key point from this experiment is nonuniform load sharing among locally controlled modules based on module power ratings. The modules with lower output inductance exhibit a swifter response to load changes. This has the effect of dynamic load sharing that deviates from the desired steady-state load sharing. Some might argue that dynamic load sharing is something that should be commanded, but the drawback of this strategy is that the converter response would be negatively affected. The modules collective transient response would be limited by the slew rate of the slowest module. The output voltage would also deviate further from the desired level. Instead, by allowing the modules to respond to load changes based on their component parameters and not forcing dynamic sharing, the converter response will be faster. Of course, care must be taken to ensure that the modules do not violate component ratings. V. C ONCLUSION Multiple module converters offer considerable benets in efciency, performance, reliability, and maintainability. One design challenge in multiple module converters is making them truly modular without adding signicant complexity. This is useful in mission-critical systems where the long term load can change considerably, e.g. a computer data center or telecommunications equipment. A modular design is based on independently controlled rather than centrally controlled modules. Local control is a form of distributed control that provides the desired modular design benets. The emphasis

(c) Inductor currents, load steps Fig. 6. Simulated response of the output voltage and inductor currents in a three module converter with non-uniform power ratings. Part (a) shows the response to a line step-up occurring at 10 s and a line step-down occurring at 30 s. Part (b) and (c) show the response to a load step-up occurring at 10 s and a load step-down occurring at 30 s.

line disturbances. Both uniform and non-uniform load sharing were achieved and reach within 12% of desired steady-state levels with open-loop control. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant ECS 06-21643 and by the Grainger Center for Electric Machinery and Electromechanics. The author would also like to thank Vasile Bora, Chris Reeg, and Pedro Nariyoshi for their signicant assistance in this work. R EFERENCES
[1] J.-W. Kim, J.-S. Yon, and B. H. Cho, Modeling, control, and design of input-series-output-parallel-connected converter for high-speed-train power system, IEEE Trans. Indust. Electron., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 536 544, June 2001. [2] J. W. Kimball, J. T. Mossoba, and P. T. Krein, A stabilizing, highperformance controller for input series-output parallel converters, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 14161427, May 2008. [3] S. Luo, Z. Ye, R.-L. Lin, and F. C. Lee, A classication and evaluation of paralleling methods for power supply modules, in Proc. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., vol. 2, July 1999, p. 901. [4] J. Rajagopalan, K. Xing, Y. Guo, F. C. Lee, and B. Manners, Modeling and dynamic analysis of paralleled dc/dc converters with master-slave current sharing control, in Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., vol. 2, Mar. 1996, pp. 678684. [5] M. M. Jovanovic, D. E. Crow, and L. Fang-Yi, A novel, low-cost implementation of democratic load-current sharing of paralleled converter modules, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 604611, July 1996. [6] D. J. Perreault, R. L. Selders, and J. G. Kassakian, Frequency-based current-sharing techniques for paralleled power converters, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 626634, July 1998. [7] Y. Zhang, R. Zane, and D. Maksimovic, Current sharing in digitally controlled masterless multi-phase dc-dc converters, in Proc. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., June 2005, pp. 27222728. [8] K. Rinne, A. Kelly, and E. OMalley, A novel digital single-wire quasidemocratic stress share scheme for paralleled switching converters, in Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., Feb. 2010, pp. 328335. [9] Z. Lin, M. Broucke, and B. Francis, Local control strategies for groups of mobile autonomous agents, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 622629, Apr. 2004. [10] E. H. Durfee, V. R. Lesser, and D. D. Corkill, Trends in cooperative distributed problem solving, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6383, Mar. 1989. [11] P. S. Shenoy and P. T. Krein, Local control of an isop push-pull converter with uneven load sharing, in Power Energy Conf. Illinois, Feb. 2010, pp. 7076. [12] L. Feng and Q. Wenlong, Implementation of an automatic interleaving approach for parallel dc/dc converter without interleaving bus, in Proc. IEEE Elect. Mach. Syst. Conf., vol. 1, Nov. 2003, pp. 368371. [13] D. J. Perreault, K. Sato, R. L. Selders, and J. G. Kassakian, Switchingripple-based current sharing for paralleled power converters, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1264 1274, Oct. 1999. [14] J. A. A. Qahouq and L. Huang, Highly efcient vrm for wide load range with dynamic non-uniform current sharing, in Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., Mar. 2007, pp. 543549. [15] Z. Lukic, Z. Zhao, A. Prodic, and D. Goder, Digital controller for multi-phase dc-dc converters with logarithmic current sharing, in Proc. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., June 2007, pp. 119123. [16] W. Chen, X. Ruan, H. Yan, and C. K. Tse, Dc/dc conversion systems consisting of multiple converter modules: Stability, control, and experimental verications, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 14631474, June 2009. [17] P. Midya, P. T. Krein, and M. F. Greuel, Sensorless current mode control-an observer-based technique for dc-dc converters, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 522526, July 2001.

(a) Increase load step

(b) Decrease load step Fig. 7. Response of a locally controlled ISOP converter with non-uniform sharing to load steps. In (a) and (b), the top signal is the output voltage and the bottom signals are output currents of three of modules. The output current of the second 10 W module is not shown.

in local control is placed on developing techniques that utilize inherent or local information in control algorithms that are implemented in each module. While still operating with global stability, limited or no communication between modules is a salient feature of this approach. Load sharing in multiple module converters is important and can be especially challenging when the modules are controlled in a distributed fashion. This paper presents a power ratings-based scheme that simply and effectively controls load sharing in a distributed converter. A resistive voltage divider creates a local input voltage reference for input series converters. Simulation and experimental results demonstrate local control through ratings-based load sharing of an ISOP push-pull converter with a high step-down ratio. Open-loop sensorless current mode control was digitally implemented on a separate FPGA for each module. The simulated and experimental converters exhibit a swift response to load and