Synergetic Synthesis Of Dc-Dc Boost Converter Controllers:

Theory And Experimental Analysis

A. Kolesnikov (+), G. Veselov (+), A. Kolesnikov (+), A. Monti (++), F. Ponci (++), E. Santi (++), and
R. Dougal (++)
(+)Department of Automatic Control System
Taganrog State University of Radio-Engineering (TSURE)
44 Nekrasovsky St., Taganrog, 347928, Russia
(++)Department of Electrical Engineering
University of South Carolina
Swearingen Center, Columbia, SC 29208 U.S.A.

Abstract- This paper describes a new approach to the
synthesis of controllers for power converters based on the
theory of synergetic control. The controller synthesis
procedure is completely analytical, and is based on fully
nonlinear models of the converter. Synergetic controllers
provide asymptotic stability with respect to the required
operating modes, invariance to load variations, and
robustness to variation of converter parameters. With respect
to their dynamic characteristics, synergetic controllers are
superior to the existing types of PI controllers. We present
here the theory of the approach, a synthesis example for a
boost converter, simulation results, and experimental results.
I. INTRODUCTION
Design of controllers for power converter systems presents
interesting challenges. In the context of system theory,
power converters are non-linear time-varying systems; they
represent the worst condition for control design.
Much effort has been spent to define small-signal linear
approximations of power cells so that classical control
theory could be applied to the design. See for example
[1,2]. Those approaches guarantee the possibility to use a
simple linear controller, e.g. Proportional-Integral
controller, to stabilize the system.
The most critical disadvantage is that the so-determined
control is suited only for operation near a specific
operating point. Further analyses are then necessary to
determine the response characteristics under large signal
variations [3,4].
Other design approaches try to overcome the problem by
using the intrinsic non-linearity and time variation for the
control purpose. Significant examples of this approach
include the sliding mode control, used mostly for
continuous-time systems [5] and the deadbeat control, used
for digital systems [6]. Those two theories have been
applied to power electronics mostly because of their
intrinsic capability to manage variably-structured systems.
In this paper we focus on a different approach, synergetic
control [7], that tries to overcome the previously described
problems by using the internal dynamic characteristics of
the system.
The synergetic approach is not limited by any non-
linearity; instead, it capitalizes on such non-linearities.
As will be discussed in the paper, this approach makes full
use of the intrinsic proprieties of the system. While this is a
strong point, it is also a weak point -- definition of the
system model plays a more strategic role than in any other
control approach. This introduces a great possibility for
sensitivity to system parameters. However, as we will
demonstrate with experimental results, this problem can be
solved.
One obvious solution is the adoption of sophisticated
observers for parameter determination. This solution is
reasonable only if the cost of the control is not a significant
concern (e.g. high-power or high voltage applications). For
situations where the control costs are of concern, we will
show that suitable selection of the control macro-variables
can largely resolve any sensitivity to uncertainty in system
parameters.
In this paper we will describe the theory of synergetic
control, demonstrate its application in the case of a boost
converter, describe both simulation and experimental
results, and finally introduce some interesting practical
considerations.
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Synthesis of a synergetic controller begins by defining a
macro-variable, which is a function of the system state
variables:
ψ (t ) = ψ ( x, t ) (1)
The control objective is to force the system to operate on
the manifold ψ = 0 . The designer can select the
characteristics of this macro-variable according to the
control specifications (e.g. limitation in the control output,
and so on). In the trivial case ψ is a simple linear
combination of the state variables. This process is then
repeated, defining as many macro-variables as there are
control channels
Next, the dynamic evolution of the macro-variables is
fixed according to the equation:
Tψ (t ) + ψ = 0; T > 0 (2)
where T is a design parameter describing the speed of
convergence to the manifold specified by the macro-
variable. Finally, the control law (evolution in time of the According to this method, we introduce the following
control output) is synthesized according to equation (2) and macro variable
the dynamic model of the system.
Briefly, any manifold introduces a new constraint on the ψ 1 = x1 − β 1 x 2 ; β 1 > 0 (5)
domain of the state space, and thereby reduces the order of
the system and forces it in the direction of global stability. Substitution of ψ 1 (3) into the functional equation:
The procedure summarized above can be easily
implemented as a computer program for automatic T1ψ 1 (t ) + ψ 1 = 0; T1 > 0 (6)
synthesis of the control law or it can be performed by hand yields:
x1 (t ) − β 1 x 2 (t ) + ψ 1 = 0
for simple systems, such as for the boost converter, that 1
(7)
have a small number of state variables. T1
Now substituting the derivatives x1 (t ) and x 2 (t ) from (3)
By suitable selection of macro-variables the designer can
obtain interesting characteristics for the final system such
as: and (4), the control law is obtained:
• Global stability LC  β 1 x2 1 1 
U = u1 = 1 −  + V g + ψ 1  (8)
• Parameter insensitivity Cx 2 + β 1 Lx1  RC L T 
• Noise suppression The expression for u1 is the control action for the converter
These results are obtained while working on the full controller. Substituting macro variable ψ and T = λ RC
nonlinear system and the designer does not need to
into (8), we obtain the control law as:
introduce simplifications in the modeling process to obtain
a linear description as is required for classical control LC  x1 β (λ − 1) 1 
u1 = 1 −  + 1 x 2 + V g  (9)
theory. Cx 2 + β 1 Lx1  λ RC λ RC L 
When λ = 1 , i.e. T1 = RC , we get:
III. SYNTHESIS OF A SYNERGETIC CONTROLLER FOR A BOOST LC  x1 1 
u1 = 1 −  + Vg  (10)
Cx 2 + β 1 Lx1  RC L 
CONVERTER
We now synthesize a controller for a DC-DC boost
Control laws (8), (9), or (10), according to (6), inevitably
converter (see Fig. 1). The classical time-averaged model
move the representing point (RP) of object (1) firstly to in-
of the converter is:
variant manifold ψ 1 = 0 (3), and then along this manifold
xC1 (t ) = − 2 (1 − u ) + V g ;
x 1
to the converter’s steady state: x1 = x1s ; x 2 = x 2 s . Let us
L L
(3) study the behavior of the closed loop system:
xC 2 (t ) = 1 (1 − u ) − 2 ,
x x
 β1 x2 1 1  1
xD1 (t ) = −
Cx2
C RC  + Vg + ψ 1  + Vg ;
0 ≤ u ≤1 (4) β1 Lx1 + Cx2  RC L T1  L (11)
where x1 is the inductor current, x 2 the capacitor voltage  β1 x2 1 1  x
xD 2 (t ) =
Lx1
 + Vg + ψ 1  − 2
and u the switch duty cycle. Our objective is to obtain the β1 Lx1 + Cx2  RC L T1  RC
control law u (x1 , x 2 ) as a function of state co-ordinates x1 ,
on the manifold ψ = 0 (3). For this purpose, we substitute
x 2 , which provides the required values of converter output
relation x1 = β x 2 into (11). This results in:
voltage x 2 = x 2 s and, therefore, current x1 = x1S for
x1ψ β 12V g
various operating modes, while satisfied limitation (4). xD1ψ (t ) = − +
(
R β 12 L + C )β 12 L + C
;
(12)
β1 Vg
xD 2ψ (t ) = −
1
x 2ψ + 2
(
R β 12 L + C ) β 1L+C
.

Each separate equation of (12) describes the behavior of

the corresponding converter coordinate x1 or x 2 on the
manifold ψ 1 = 0 . Evidently, equation (12) is
asymptotically stable with respect to the converters’ steady
state:
x1s = β 12 RV g ; x 2 s = β 1 RV g (13)
From relation (13) we see that converter’s steady state
Fig. 1: Boost Converter scheme
operating point depends on the power source voltage
V g and on the load resistance R. After we set the required V. SYSTEM MODELING RESULTS

reference value of the converter’s output voltage x 2 s , (13) Extensive simulation analysis has been conducted to verify
the control performance. The simulations have been
gives us a possibility to find β 1 , present in macro variable performed using both Matlab and the VTB simulator [8].
ψ 1 , i.e. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the transients created by changes in
the load and in the power source amplitude, as predicted by
x2 s x1s Matlab models. Fig. 4 shows the phase portrait of the
β1 = = . (14) system and the stability characteristics of the control
RV g RV g
system as demonstrated by convergence to the manifold.
The steady state value of control u s , which provides the Other simulation results, obtained in the VTB
environment, are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. This second
converter’s steady state (13), will be determined by the
step was useful insofar as guiding construction of the real
following equation:
converter because of the possibility to use more detailed
β 1 u1S = 1 . (15) models of the power cell. For example, the capacitance
model in VTB contains also the equivalent series
Knowing β 1 in (14) and u1S in (15), we can find the resistance, giving the opportunity to explore more realistic
steady state parameters of the converter. problems.

So, the synthesized control law u1 after a time interval

approximately equal to 3T moves the RP of the plant to
the manifold ψ 1 = 0 , and then, according to equation (12),
provides asymptotically stable movement along ψ 1 = 0 to
the converter’s steady state (13). According to (12), the
time to move RP along ψ 1 = 0 is determined by the
(
expression R β 12 L + C . )
Control law u1 provides converter motion from an
arbitrary initial state x10 ≥ 0 , x20 > 0 to the steady state
x1s , x2 s . In other words, the synthesized control law u1
with T1 > 0 and β1 > 0 guarantees asymptotic stability (in
the whole) of the closed loop system with respect to the
converter’s steady state.
Fig. 2: The voltage transients

IV. OTHER POSSIBLE CONTROL SYNTHESIS FOR THE BOOST CASE

The previous case illustrated a very simple case of control
synthesis that transformed the boost circuit into a first
order system always working in the manifold described by
the macro-variable. This case does not cover all the
possible situations we could face in reality, where more
complex macro-variables must be introduced.
One classical problem is accounting for limitation of one
of the state variables, for example, limiting the maximum
input current. This problem can be simply solved by
defining a new macro-variable:
ψ 2 = x1 − A tanh( β 2 x2 ) (16)
where A = x1max . This defines a new manifold where the
current is naturally limited. In the rest of paper other Fig. 3: The load changing
assumptions will bring us to the definition of other possible
macro-variables.
 Fig. 5: VTB schematic

Fig. 4: System phase portrait

VI. LABORATORY EXPERIENCE

Following theoretical analysis, a laboratory prototype was
designed and built. Since synergetic control is well suited
for digital implementation a DSP-based platform was
selected for migration from the VTB environment to the
real world.
The small-scale power converter system has the following
nominal characteristics:

- Rated Input Voltage: 12 V

- Rated Output Voltage: 40 V
- Maximum Load: 100 W
- Input Inductance: L = 46 mH
- Output Filter Capacitance: 1.360 mF
- Main Switch: IRF540N
Fig. 6: VTB results
The main targets of the experimental analysis were: On the other hand, adoption of the simplest macro-variable
definitions revealed significant problems with respect to
• Verification of the control theory parameter sensitivity. This sensitivity mostly affected the
• Analysis of problems related to the model steady-state value of the output voltage -- which resulted to
parameter sensitivity be different from the reference value.
For this reason, after the first set of experiments, a new
By defining the controller in Simulink, we were able to macro-variable was defined:
easily export the control algorithms to both a dSpace
platform for control of the real hardware, and to the VTB ψ = (x - x ) + k (x - x )
2 2ref 1 1ref (17)
environment for system simulation. The ease of inserting
the Simulink controller into both hardware model allowed
This new macro-variable significantly reduced the problem
unique opportunities to rapidly experiment with a wide
of parameter sensitivity and allowed for the steady state to
variety of macro-variable definitions in order to identify
be set more accurately.
and resolve significant early problems.
Using this approach two main parameters had to be tuned
One interesting observation common to both experimental
for control performance:
environments (simulation and hardware) was the
possibility to introduce any kind of transient in the output
voltage reference without requiring any soft-start option. • The value T involved in the main synergetic
The system easily remained stable under large non-linear equation (2)
transients. • The value of K involved in the macro-variable
definition.
The role of T is extremely interesting. As far as equation We want now to show some comparisons between
(2) is concerned, T defines the speed with which we reach simulated and experimental results that confirm the
the manifold. On the other hand, this parameter also plays theoretical discussion presented in the previous paragraph.
an interesting role in noise reduction. These results show the transient that follows step change of
In the case of the boost control, the state vector is easily the reference voltage from 20 to 40 V.
accessible and so we can assume that the error introduced
in evaluation of the macro-variable is quite limited. On the
other hand, its derivative is obtained by means of the state
equations so then the system parameters play a significant
role.
Let us suppose that we have a systematic constant error in
the evaluation of the derivative. If we check for the steady-
state condition of this equation we will have:

T (ψD (t ) + e) + ψ = 0

and then in steady state:

ψ = −Te

This means that by decreasing T, we decrease the time

with which the manifold is reached. But also we reduce the Fig. 7: Output Voltage (Simulation)
steady-state error that is introduced by wrong estimation of
the system parameters. During the experiments we found
that a reduction of T from 1ms to 0.1 ms yielded a
significant increase in accuracy of the steady-state.
K plays a significant role after reaching the manifold; it
determines the way that errors in the main state variable
are canceled by using the error on the current.
Decreasing K increases the control performance but also
calls for a higher current peak during any transient.
This situation, as pointed out in the introduction, could be
solved by definition of a more sophisticated macro-
variable which can account for current limitation.
The synergetic approach also gives an opportunity to solve
the steady-state problem by introducing a new state
variable that represents the integral of the reference-
feedback error. This is analogous to an integral term in a
standard linear controller.
We decided to avoid this option in order to keep the system
simpler and to better exploit the possibilities offered by Fig. 8: Output Voltage (experiment)
parameter tuning and macro-variable definition.
However, the introduction of the integral term is always
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show the output voltage from experiment
possible to force the error to go zero at steady state.
and simulation. One can clearly see that the synergetic
According to the laboratory experience, we also figured
control transformed the second-order system into a first-
out that this option should be considered eventually as a
order system. This can be easily justified by considering
refining option working in the direction of keeping the
that when we are on the manifold we have a linear relation
integral charge as small as possible.
between two state variables. Introducing the constraint, the
order is reduced. This is always true for synergetic
VII. COMPARISON BETWEEN SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL
applications and it constitutes a similarity with the sliding
RESULTS mode approach.
Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 focus on the evolution in time of the
macro-variable. The two transients looks very similar in
All the results shown in the following have been obtained
the first part moving in the direction of the manifold with
using the macro-variable definition reported in (17).
the same speed. In the experimental results, anyway, a
second transient starts when we are close to steady state:
this can be considered another side effect of the imperfect
system modeling.
Fig. 9: macro-variable as function of time (simulated data)
Fig. 10: macro-variable as function of time real data)
Finally in Fig. 11 and in Fig. 12 the results for the input
current are presented. Also in this case the simulation
results and the experimental data match perfectly.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
This paper introduced a new and interesting control
approach called Synergetic Control. The main feature of
this approach is to manage with the same level of
simplicity both linear and non-linear systems.
The main aspect of control design is definition of a macro-
variable that specifies a manifold for the space variables.
We have discussed several different definitions of the
macro-variable and described the practical consequences of
the different selections. The theoretical aspects have been
discussed and then confirmed through experiment and
simulation.
Fig. 11: Input Current (averaged-simulated value)
Fig. 12: Input current (filtered-experimental data)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the US Office of Naval
Research (ONR) under grant N00014-00-1-0131
REFERENCES
[1] S. Sanders, J. Noworolski, Xiaojun Z. Liu, and G. C.
Verghese, “Generalized Averaging Method for Power
Conversion Circuits”, in IEEE Trans. on Power
Electronics, vol. 6. N. 2, April 1991, pp. 251-258
[2] D.M. Mitchell, "DC-DC switching regulator analysis",
McGraw Hill Book Company, 1988
[3] R. W. Erickson, S. Cuk, and R.D. Middlebrook,
“Large-scale modelling and analysis of switching
regulators”, in IEEE PESC Rec., 1982, pp. 240-250
[4] P. Maranesi, M. Riva, A. Monti, A. Rampoldi,
"Automatic Synthesis of Large Signal Models for
 Power Electronic Circuits", IEEE-PESC99, Charleston
(USA), July 1999
[5] V.I. Utkin, "Variable Structure system with Sliding
modes". IEEE Trans. on Ind. Electronics, vol AC 22,
no. 2, pp. 212-222, 1977.
[6] L.Ben-Brahim, A. Kawamura, “Digital Control of
Induction Motor Current with Deadbeat Response
Using Predictive State Observer”, IEEE Trans. On
Power Electronics, vol. 7, N. 3, July 1992, pp. 551-559
[7] A. Kolesnikov, G. Veselov, A. Kolesnikov, et al.
“Modern applied control theory: Synergetic Approach
in Control Theory,” vol. 2. (in Russian) Moscow –
Taganrog, TSURE press, 2000
[8] R. Dougal, T. Lovett, A. Monti, E. Santi, “A
Multilanguage Environment for Interactive Simulation
and Development of Controls for Power Electronics,”
IEEE PESC01, Vancouver (Canada).