Abstract
In this paper, a step-by-step description to get a unique three-level boost DC–DC converter (TLBDC) (DC—direct current) small signal model is first presented and validated through simulations and experiments. This model allows for overcoming the usage of two sub-models as in the conventional modeling approach. Based on this model, voltage balance (VB) controllers are designed and VB control analysis is presented. Two VB controllers, namely Proportional Integral (PI) and Fuzzy, were analyzed when the VB control was applied on both TLBDC switches or only one. According to the obtained simulation and experimental results, the proposed model gives an accurate approximation in dynamic, small perturbations around an operating point and steady state modes. Moreover, it has been shown that VB is achieved in a reduced time when VB control is applied on both the TLBDC’s switches. Furthermore, the Fuzzy controller performs better than PI controller for VB control.
Highlights
Energies 2018, 11, 3073 conventional two-level topologies
The converter fundamentals and design considerations were presented in Reference [19], where it has been shown, for instance, that the converter inductance and capacitors can be significantly reduced when compared to the two-level boost DC–DC converter
The results of this study present a significant advance in the modeling and control of TLBDCs
Summary
Based on the differential Equations (1)–(16), the TLBDC state space equations for the four control signals sequences are given by Equations (17)–(24), where Equations (17) and (18) correspond to the state space equations for 0-0 control signals state, Equations (19) and (20) correspond to the state space equations for 0-1 control signals state, Equations (21) and (22) correspond to the state space equations for 1-0 control signals state, and Equations (23) and (24) correspond to the state space equations for 0-0 control signals state. Il vc , vIN, vout, u1, and u2 as the average values of the state vector vc il x = vc , vIN, vout, u1, and u2, respectively Using this notation, the obtained SSAM is given vc by Equations (29) and (30):. The simulated and experimental output voltage curves for the switched model and the SSM around 30% and 60% DRs are respectively illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, where 4% positive and negative perturbations were introduced around those DR values. By analyzing these results, one can see that the proposed SSM gave an averaged behavior of the TLBDC for both DR cases.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
