Abstract

Nowadays, the Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL) technique is widely used to test different power electronic converters. These real-time simulations require processing large data at high speed, which makes this application very suitable for FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Array) as they are capable of parallel processing. This paper provides an analytical discussion on three HIL models for a full-bridge converter. The three models use different possible numerical formats, namely float and fixed-point, the latter with and without optimizing the width of signals to the embedded DSP (Digital Signal Processors) blocks of the FPGA. The optimized fixed-point model (OFPM) uses three and two times fewer DSP blocks or LUTs (Look Up Tables), and the maximum achievable clock frequency is also up to 35 % and 25 % higher than the float model and non-optimized fixed-point model (nOFPM), respectively. Furthermore, the models’ accuracy is proportional to the clock frequency, thus the OFPM is also the most accurate model. Finally, the paper shows the differences in the simulation when the models include or not losses, proving that not including losses leads to high errors, especially during transients.

Highlights

  • Nowadays, it is necessary to find some alternatives to test power electronic converters to reach more advantages over the classical test flow which only includes off-line simulations followed by tests in a real prototype

  • Three different HIL models of the full-bridge converter based on different possible numerical formats are proposed

  • The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the differences between the different proposed HIL models and compare the used area based on different numerical formats

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is necessary to find some alternatives to test power electronic converters to reach more advantages over the classical test flow which only includes off-line simulations followed by tests in a real prototype. Mixed-signal simulators [2], a mixture of VHDL (Very high-speed integrated circuit Hardware Description Language) and analog signal extension (VHDL-AMS simulator) [3], or using two different simulators, one for the controller part which usually designs in VHDL and the other one for the analog power converter part [4], were employed to tackle this issue. These simulation alternatives were not trivial in many cases, they were usually very slow and, above all, did not meet the requirement of testing the real final controller in hardware

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call