www.elsevier.com/locate/sysconle
Stability of currentmode control for DCDC
power converters
Jose AlvarezRamirez
a
, Gerardo EspinosaP erez
b,
a
Division de Ciencias Basicas e Ingenieria, Universidad Autonoma MetropolitanaIztapalapa, Apartado Postal 55534,
Mexico D.F. 09340, Mexico
b
Divisi on de Estudios de Posgrado, Facultad de Ingeniera, Universidad Nacional Aut onoma de M exico, Apartado Postal 70256,
M exico D.F. 04510, Mexico
Received 9 October 2000; received in revised form 20 August 2001; accepted 24 August 2001
Abstract
DCDC power converters are switched devices whose averaged dynamics are described by a bilinear secondorder
system with saturated input. In some cases (e.g., boost and buckboost converters), the input output dynamics can be of
nonminimumphase nature. Currentmode control is the standard strategy for output voltage regulation in high dynamic
performance industrial DCDC power converters. It is basically composed by a saturated linear state feedback (inductor
current and output voltage) plus an output voltage integral feedback to remove steadystate oset. Despite its widespread
usage, there is a lack of rigorous results to back up its stabilization capability and to systematize its design. In this paper,
we prove that currentmode control yields semiglobal stability with asymptotic regulation of the output voltage. c 2002
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nonlinear systems; DCDC power converters; Currentmode control; Semiglobal stability
1. Introduction
The ever increasing demand for smaller size,
portable, and lighter weight high performance DC
DC PWM power converters for industrial, com
munications (i.e., portable telephones), residential,
and aerospace applications, is currently a topic of
0 L
1
(1 u)
C
1
(1 u) (CR)
1
.
and
B(E) =
L
1
E
0
. (9)
System(8) is linear and has a unique equilibriumpoint
given by Eq. (7). Since trace(A( u)) =(CR)
1
0
and det(A( u)) = (CL)
1
(1 u)
2
0, the equilib
rium point x = q( u
c
) is exponentially asymptotically
stable. Finally, notice that J
1
(x x)=(x x)
T
P(x x)
is a Lyapunov function for system (8), where
P 0 satises the Lyapunov equation PA( u) +
A( u)
T
P =I .
Property P.2 implies that, for all constant input
u
c
R, the boost converter has a unique equilibrium
point x = q( u
c
), which is globally uniformly ex
ponentially stable. On the other hand, property P.3
implies that each steadystate output voltage , = x
2
is achieved by one and only one constant input u
c
.
3. Main result
If ,
x
2
) + K
I
t
0
(,
x
2
(o)) do, (10)
where u is a nominal control input, K
P1
and K
P2
are,
respectively, the current and the voltage proportional
gains, K
I
is the integral gain, and x
1
R
0
is a nom
inal current value which can be computed, for each
value of u, from Eq. (7). Notice that system (4), (10)
establishes a nonlinear control problem.
The main contribution of this paper can be stated
as follows.
Theorem 2. Consider the DCDC boost converter
(4) under the CMC (10). If K
P
 = (K
P, 1
, K
P, 2
)
T
 is
small enough, for any bounded set of initial conditions
116 J. AlvarezRamirez, G. EspinosaP erez / Systems & Control Letters 45 (2002) 113119
E R
2
0
, there exists K
max
I
0 depending on E such
that, for all K
I
(0, K
max
I
), and all initial conditions
x(0) E, the corresponding state trajectory x(t, x(0))
converges exponentially to an (bounded) equilibrium
point and ,(t) ,
as t .
The proof of the above theorem is divided into the
following steps. First, we study the output voltage
control problem under purely integral feedback (i.e.,
K
P
=0). Second, we prove that properties P.1P.4 are
invariant under sucient small proportional feedback
K
P
. As will be clear from the development, these two
steps are equivalent to the proof of the whole control
law.
3.1. Integral control
In this subsection, we study the stability of boost
converter (4) under purely integral control.
Proposition 3. Consider the DCDC boost con
verter (4) under the integral feedback control
u
c
= u + K
I
t
0
(,
x
2
(o)) do. (11)
For any bounded set of initial conditions E R
2
0
,
there exists K
max
I
0 depending on E such that,
for all K
I
(0, K
max
I
), and all initial conditions
x(0) E, the corresponding state trajectory x(t, x(0))
is bounded and ,(t) ,
as t .
Proof. Without loosing generality, we will take u=0.
Write the equations describing the controlled boost
converter as
x = [(x, u
c
),
u
c
= K
I
(,
,),
, = x
2
(12)
with K
I
0, x(0)=x
0
, and u
c
(0)=u
c, 0
(0, 1). Dene
u
c
by
,
= q
2
(u
c
) = (1 S(u
c
))
1
E, (13)
i.e., u
c
is the constant input corresponding to the set
point value ,
c
ex
ists and is unique. To shift the origin to the equi
librium point, dene the new coordinates t(t) and
,(t) = (,
1
(t), ,
2
(t))
T
R
2
by
t(t) = u
c
(t) u
c
,
,(t) = x(t) q(u
c
(t)). (14)
Using these coordinates as state variables, system (12)
becomes
, =[(q(t + u
c
) + ,, t + u
c
)
K
I
Dq(t + u
c
) (q
2
(u
c
) q
2
(t + u
c
) + ,
2
),
t =K
I
(q
2
(u
c
) q
2
(t + u
c
) + ,
2
) (15)
with ,(0) = x
0
q(u
c, 0
) and t(0) = u
c, 0
u
c
. By
virtue of property P.2 in Proposition 1, the origin is
the unique equilibrium point of (15). Since q is a C
1
function, (,(t), t(t)) (0
2
, 0) as t implies that
,(t) ,
def
= K
I
t
and dene the state variables in the new time scale as
:(t
) = ,(t
}K
I
),
w(t
) = t(t
}K
I
). (16)
Using t
=[(q(w + u
c
) + :, w + u
c
)
K
I
Dq(w + u
c
) (q
2
(u
c
) q
2
(w + u
c
) + :
2
),
w
= K
I
(q
2
(u
c
) q
2
(w + u
c
) + :
2
) (17)
where :
= d:}dt
and w
= dw}dt
. System (17) is in
the form of a standard singular perturbation [2] with
: and w as the fast and slow variables, respectively,
and K
I
0 as the perturbation parameter. The corre
sponding boundarylayer system is given by
:
= [(q(u
c, 0
) :, u
c, 0
), (18)
which, by virtue of property P.4 in Proposition 1, is
globally asymptotically exponentially stable about the
origin. Moreover, J
1
(:)=:
T
P: is a Lyapunov function
for system (18), where P 0 is the solution of the
Lyapunov equation PA(u
c, 0
)+A(u
c, 0
)
T
P=I . On the
other hand, the corresponding reduced system is
w
= q
2
(u
c
) q
2
(w + u
c
). (19)
J. AlvarezRamirez, G. EspinosaP erez / Systems & Control Letters 45 (2002) 113119 117
By taking the quadratic function J
2
(w)=
1
2
w
2
, we have
that
J
2
= w(q
2
(u
c
) q
2
(w + u
c
)).
Since q
2
is a strictly increasing (property P.3 in
Proposition 1), we have that there exists a positive
constant o
1
such that q
2
(u
c
) q
2
(w + u
c
) o
1
w.
Hence, J
o
1
w
2
0, so that the reduced system
is globally asymptotically stable about the origin.
We notice that [(x, u
c
) is not a globally Lipchitz
function. However, since [(x, u
c
) C
1
, it is locally
Lipchitz. Under these arguments, the result is ob
tained as a straightforward application of Theorem 2
in [2].
Basically, Proposition 3 establishes that a simple
lowgain integral control yields output voltage regu
lation with internal stability.
3.2. Proportional control
Commonly, industrial power converters have a
high quality factor (i.e., low damping factor). To
enhance the transient response of the controlled con
verter, a proportional current feedback is applied.
Here we study the stability of the boost converter
under proportional state feedback.
Proposition 4. Consider boost converter (4) under
the state feedback
u
c
=P(x, u
c, I
)
def
= K
P1
( x
1
x
1
) + K
P2
(,
x
2
) + u
c, I
, (20)
where the control input u
c, I
is left for integral ac
tion. For K
P
 small enough, the closedloop system
(4), (20) meets the following properties:
P.1
: (x, u
c, I
)
def
= [(x, P(x, u
c, I
)) : R
2
0
R R is a
C
1
function.
P.2
: There exists a C
1
function : R R
2
0
such
that, for all constant input u
c, I
R,
(x, u
c, I
) =0 i
(u
c, I
)
def
= (
1
(u
c, I
),
2
(u
c, I
))
T
= x. (21)
P.3
: The map
2
( u
c
) : R R
0
is globally Lipchitz
and strictly increasing, i.e., D
2
( u
c, I
) 0 for all
u
c, I
R.
P.4
) It is straightforward. (P.2
) From (7),
we can write x=( x), where ( x)=q(P( x, u
c, I
)). We
have that D( x) = Dq( u
c
)
T
DP( x, u
c, I
), where u
c
=
P( x, u
c, I
), DP( x, u
c, I
) = K
P
and
Dq(u
c
) =EDS(u
c
) (2R
1
(1 S(u
c
))
3
,
(1 S(u
c
))
2
).
The derivative DS( u
c
) is bounded and 1 S( u
c
)
is bounded away from zero, so that there exists a
positive constant o
2
such that Dq( u
c
) o
2
, for all
u
c
R. This yields D( x) 6o
2
K
P
 1 for K
P

small enough. This shows that q(P( x, u
c, I
)) is a con
traction [4]. Hence, the contraction mapping theorem
implies the existence and uniqueness of a C
1
function
x =( u
c, I
) that is solution of x =q(P( x, u
c, I
)). (P.3
)
From (7), we can get the following:
D(u
c, I
) =DS(P( x, u
c, I
))E1(P( x, u
c, I
))
(1 + K
P
D(u
c, I
)),
where 1(P( x, u
c, I
)) = (2(1 S(P( x, u
c, I
)))
3
, (1
S(P( x, u
c, I
)))
2
)
T
. Since both DS(P( x, u
c, I
)) and
1(P( x, u
c, I
)) are globally bounded, we have that
D( u
c, I
) is also a globally bounded function for K
P

small enough. This proves that
2
( u
c, I
) is globally
Lipchitz. On the other hand, we have that
D(u
c, I
) =DS(P( x, u
c, I
)) (1 S(P( x, u
c, I
)))
2
E(1 + K
P
D(u
c, I
))
so that D( u
c, I
) 0 for K
P
 small enough. (P.4
)
Write the system (4), (20) as
x = [(x, K
P
x + o + u
cI
), (23)
where o
def
= K
P1
x
1
+K
P2
,
. Let u
cI, 1
=(1+K
P
q)
1
u
c, I
and dene x
def
= x q(u
cI, 1
) = x q(1 + K
P
q)
1
(u
c, I
),
and write (23) as
x = [( x + q(u
cI, 1
), u
cI, 1
) + [( x, u
cI, 1
), (24)
118 J. AlvarezRamirez, G. EspinosaP erez / Systems & Control Letters 45 (2002) 113119
where
[( x, u
cI, 1
)
=[[q(u
cI, 1
) + x, (1 + K
P
q)u
cI, 1
K
P
(q(u
cI, 1
) + x)] [(q(u
cI, 1
) + x, u
cI, 1
).
Since [(x, u
c
) is a C
1
function, we have that
[( x, u
cI, 1
) 6pK
P
x for all x E R
2
0
.
(25)
By virtue of property P.2, the origin is the unique equi
librium point of the system
x =[( x +q(u
cI, 1
), u
cI, 1
) =
A(u
cI, 1
) x (see Eq. (8)). Moreover, the origin is glob
ally uniformly (in the constant input u
cI, 1
) exponen
tially stable (property P.4). Hence, inequality (25)
and standard Lyapunov arguments with the quadratic
function J( x) =
1
2
x
T
P x lead to the conclusion that the
bounded set E R
2
0
is contained in the region of
attraction of the origin (semiglobal stability) for K
P

small enough.
Remark 1. It should be noticed that the main obstruc
tion to prove global stability via the above Lyapunov
arguments is the fact that [(x, u
c
+K
P
x) is not a glob
ally Lipchitz function.
3.3. Proof of Theorem 2
In view of propositions 3 and 4, the proof of Theo
rem 2 is straightforward. In fact, from Proposition 3,
system (4), (20) satises properties P.1
P.4
. By us
ing u
c, I
= u + K
I
t
0
(,
x
2
(o)) do in Eq. (20), the
proof can be constructed along the same arguments as
those in the proof of Proposition 2.
Remark 2. Roughly speaking, Theorem 2 establishes
that a lowgain linear statefeedback control plus a
simple output voltage integral action yields stability
and asymptotic regulation of the output voltage for all
initial conditions contained in any given bounded set.
Remark 3 (Buckboost power converter). Although
we have focused mainly on the boost converter, anal
ogous results can be established for the buckboost
converter. The averaged model with input saturation of
the converter is
x
1
= L
1
[(1 S(u
c
))x
2
+ S(u
c
)E],
x
2
= C
1
[ (1 S(u
c
))x
1
R
1
x
2
],
, = x
2
(26)
with the state vector x contained in the fourth quad
rant. Analogous properties to those described in
Proposition 1 can be obtained. In particular,
q(u
c
) =
R
1
S(u
c
)(1 S(u
c
))
2
S(u
c
)(1 S(u
c
))
1
(27)
and Dq
2
( u
c
) = DS( u
c
) (1 S( u
c
))
2
E 0 for
all u
c
R. This is, contrary to the boost converter,
the map q
2
( u
c
) : R R
0
is strictly decreasing.
Following the same ideas that led to the proof of
Theorem 1, one concludes that K
I
0. Summarizing,
for the buckboost converter, Theorem 1 must be
as follows: Consider the DCDC buckboost con
verter (26) under the CMC (5). If K
P
 is small
enough, for any bounded set of initial conditions
E R
0
R
0
, there exists K
min
I
0 depend
ing on E such that for all K
I
(K
min
I
, 0), and all
initial conditions x(0) E, the corresponding state
trajectory x(t, x(0)) is bounded and ,(t) ,
as
t .
4. Conclusions
We have presented a proof of the stabilization capa
bility of CMC for DCDC power converters. Roughly
speaking, we have shown that CMC, which is com
posed by a linear state feedback plus an output voltage
integral action plus a saturation, yields semiglobal sta
bility with asymptotic regulation of the output voltage.
References
[1] C.W. Deisch, Simple switching control method changes power
converter into a current source, Conference Records IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 1978, pp. 300306.
[2] F. Hoppensteadt, Asymptotic stability in singular perturbation
problems. II: problems having matched asymptotic expansion
solution, J. Dierential Equations 15 (1974) 510521.
[3] J.G. Kassakian, M. Schlecht, G.C. Verghese, Principles
of Power Electronics, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA,
1991.
J. AlvarezRamirez, G. EspinosaP erez / Systems & Control Letters 45 (2002) 113119 119
[4] A.N. Kolmogorov, S.V. Fomin, Elements of the Theory of
Functional Analysis I: Metric and Normed Spaces, Graylock
Press, Rochester, 1957.
[5] M.H. Rashid, Power Electronics: Circuits, Devices and
Applications, PrenticeHall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1988.
[6] H. Rodriguez, R. Ortega, G. Escobar, N. Barabanov, A
robustly stable output feedback saturated controller for the
boost DCtoDC converter, Systems Control Lett. 40 (2000)
18.
[7] S.R. Sanders, G.C. Verghese, D.F. Cameron, Nonlinear control
laws for switching power converters, Proceedings of the
25th IEEE Conference Decision and Control, Athens, Greece,
1986.
[8] H. SiraRamirez, R. Perez, R. Ortega, M. Garcia,
Passivitybased controllers for the stabilization of DCtoDC
power converters, Automatica 39 (1997) 499513.