CIRCUIT AVERAGING AND NUMERICAL AVERAGE VALUE MODELING OF

FLYBACK CONVERTER IN CCM AND DCM INCLUDING PARASITICS AND

SNUBBERS

by

Soroush Amini Akbarabadi

B.Sc., Amirkabir University of Technology, 2011

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES

(ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(Vancouver)

June 2014

Soroush Amini Akbarabadi, 2014

Abstract

Modeling and analysis of basic DC-DC converters is essential for enabling power-
electronic solutions for the future energy systems and applications. Average-value modeling
(AVM) provides a time-efficient tool for studying power electronic systems, including
DC/DC converters. Many AVM techniques including the analytical and numerical state-
space averaging and circuit averaging have been developed over the years and available in
the literature. Average-value modeling of ideal PWM converters neglects parasitics (losses)
to simplify the derivations and modeling procedures, and the resulting models may not be
sufficiently accurate for practical converters.
In this work, first we consider a second-order Flyback converter, which has
transformer isolation and additional parasitics such as conduction losses that have not been
accurately included in the prior literature. We propose three new AVMs using the analytical
state-space averaging, circuit averaging, and parametric AVM approaches, respectively. By
taking into account conduction losses, the accuracy of the proposed average-value models is
significantly improved. The derived (corrected) models show noticeable improvement over
the traditional (un-corrected) models.
Next, we consider the Flyback converter including the snubbers and leakage
inductances in the full-order model. Snubbers reduce electromagnetic interfaces (EMI)
during transients and protect switching devices from high voltage, and therefore are
necessary in many practical converter circuits. Including snubbers into the model improves
accuracy in predicting the circuit variables during the time-domain transients as well as
predicting the converter efficiency. It is shown that conventional analytical/numerical
methods of averaging do not result in accurate AVM for the full-order Flyback converter. A
new formulation for the state-space averaging methodology is proposed that is functional for
higher-order converters with parasitics and result in highly accurate AVM. The new
approach is justified mathematically and verified experimentally using hardware prototype
and measurements. The new model is demonstrated to achieve accurate results in large signal
time-domain transients, and small-signal frequency-domain analysis in continuous
conduction mode (CCM) and discontinuous conduction mode (DCM), which represents
advancement to the state-of-the-art in this field.

ii
Preface

The research results presented in this thesis have been already published in several
conference proceedings and/or ready for submission as a journal article. In all publications, I
was responsible for developing the formulations, implementing models, doing simulations
and hardware tests, compiling results, as well as preparing the majority of the manuscripts.
My research supervisor, Dr. Juri Jatskevich, has provided supervisory comments and
corrections during the process of conducting research and writing the manuscripts. The other
co-authors have also provided constructive comments and feedback.

A version of Chapter 2 has been published:

S. Amini Akbarabadi, H. Atighechi, and J. Jatskevich, Circuit-Averaged and State-Space-

Averaged-Value Modeling of Second-Order Flyback Converter in CCM and DCM Including
Conduction Losses, International Conference On Energy and Electrical Drives
(POWERENG), May 2013, pp. 995-1000.

S. Amini Akbarabadi, M. Sucu, H. Atighechi, and J. Jatskevich, Numerical average value

modeling of second-order Flyback converter in both operational modes, IEEE Workshop on
Control and Modeling for Power Electronics (COMPEL), June 2013, pp. 1-6.

S. Amini Akbarabadi, H. Atighechi,J. Jatskevich, Corrected State-Space Averaged-Value

Modeling of Second-Order FlybackConverter Including Conduction Losses, IEEE
Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), 2013, Regina,
Canada.

iii
Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii

Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vii

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. xi

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xii

Chapter 1 : Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Average-Value Modeling ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 State-Space Averaging...................................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Circuit Averaging ............................................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Parametric Average Value Modeling ............................................................................... 3
1.2 Flyback Converters ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Motivations and Objectives .................................................................................................. 5

Chapter 2 : Second-order Flyback Converters .................................................................... 7

2.1 State-Space Averaging .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 State-Space Averaging Case Studies .............................................................................. 13
2.1.1.1 Correction Matrix M .............................................................................................. 13
2.1.1.2 Effect of Including Parasitics on Predicted Efficiency of Converter ..................... 15
2.1.1.3 Closed-loop System ............................................................................................... 16
2.2 Circuit Averaging................................................................................................................ 17
2.2.1 New Large-Signal Averaged Switching Cell.................................................................. 17
2.2.2 Ideal Averaged Cell ........................................................................................................ 18
2.2.3 Energy Conservation Principle ....................................................................................... 19
2.2.4 Circuit Averaging Case Studies ...................................................................................... 22
2.2.4.1 Time-Domain Transient ......................................................................................... 23
2.2.4.2 Frequency-Domain Analysis.................................................................................. 26
2.3 Numerical Average Value Modeling .................................................................................. 28

iv
 2.3.1 Parametric Average Value Modeling ............................................................................. 28
2.3.2 Numerical Average Value Modeling Case Studies ........................................................ 32
2.3.2.1 Time-Domain Transient Studies ............................................................................ 32
2.3.2.2 Frequency-Domain Analysis.................................................................................. 37

Chapter 3 : Full-order Flyback Converter ......................................................................... 38

3.1 Effect of Input Snubber in SSA .......................................................................................... 38
3.2 Effect of Output Snubber in SSA-AVM ............................................................................. 41
3.2.1 Output Stage without Snubber (4th Order Flyback Converter) ....................................... 41
3.2.2 Output Stage with Snubber (5th Order Flyback Converter) ............................................ 43
3.3 Generalized Numerical SSA-AVM..................................................................................... 46
3.4 Construction and Implementation of the Generalized PAVM ............................................ 47
3.5 Eigenvalue Analysis............................................................................................................ 55
3.6 Model Validation with Respect to Hardware ...................................................................... 56
3.7 Precision Evaluation in Steady State .................................................................................. 58
3.8 Case Studies ........................................................................................................................ 59
3.8.1 Performance of Proposed PAVM in Time-Domain Transients ...................................... 60
3.8.2 Performance of Proposed PAVM in Frequency-Domain ............................................... 65

Chapter 4 : Summary of Research and Future Work ....................................................... 66

4.1 Second-order Flyback Converter ........................................................................................ 66
4.2 Flyback Converter with Snubbers ....................................................................................... 66
4.3 Future Work ........................................................................................................................ 67

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 68

Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 73
Appendix A. Second-order Flyback Converter State-space Matrices ........................................... 73
Appendix B. Converters Circuit Parameters ................................................................................. 74
B.1 Second-order Flyback Converter Parameters with Basic Parasitics ............................... 74
B.2 Full-order Flyback Converter Parameters with all Parasitics and Snubbers................... 74
Appendix C. Hardware Flyback Converter Prototype Circuit Diagram ....................................... 75

v
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Output voltage and inductor current values and errors as predicted by
different averaged models in DCM and CCM. .................................................... 24
Table 2.2 Eigenvalues of average-value models in DCM and CCM. ..................................... 25
Table 2.3 Efficiency comparison of average-value models. ................................................... 25
Table 2.4 Output voltage and inductor current as predicted by various models for
the two steady state operating points. .................................................................. 34
Table 2.5 Converter efficiency as predicted by various models for the two steady
state operating points. .......................................................................................... 34
Table 2.6 Simulation speed comparison of the detailed and average models in
closed-loop transient study................................................................................... 36
Table 3.1 Eigenvalues of AVMs. ............................................................................................ 56
Table 3.2 Hardware prototype and detailed model comparison in terms of input
current, output voltage and efficiency.................................................................. 57
Table 3.3 Accuracy precision of the proposed PAVM in predicting steady state
variables. .............................................................................................................. 59
Table 3.4 Accuracy precision of the proposed PAVM in predicting converter
efficiency. ............................................................................................................. 59

vi
List of Figures

Figure 1.1 A detailed waveform containing switching ripple and the

corresponding average-value ................................................................................. 1
Figure 1.2 Full-order Flyback converter circuit with snubbers on primary and
secondary sides. ..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2.1 Simplified second-order Flyback converter with basic conduction
parasitics................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.2 Idealized inductor current waveform assuming DCM. ........................................... 8
Figure 2.3 Assumed topological instances for the second-order Flyback converter
without parasitics; (a) original circuit; (b) circuit during subinterval 1;
(c) circuit during subinterval 2; and (d) circuit during subinterval 3. .................... 9
Figure 2.4 Effect of basic parasitics on inductor waveform and its peak in DCM. ................ 11
Figure 2.5 Simplified second-order Flyback converter with basic conduction
parasitics represented as an equivalent resistor in the primary side. ................... 11
Figure 2.6 Steady state output voltage and inductor current in DCM as predicted
by various models: (a) detailed model; (b) state-space averaged-value
model (SS-AVM); and (c) corrected state-space averaged-value
model (CSS-AVM.). ............................................................................................ 14
Figure 2.7 Efficiency prediction by various models as a function of the load
resistance: (a) detailed model; (b) CSS-AVM without equivalent
parasitic resistance; and (c) CSS-AVM with equivalent parasitic
resistance. ............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.8 Efficiency prediction by various models as a function of duty cycle:
(a) detailed model; (b) CSS-AVM without equivalent parasitic
resistance; and (c) CSS-AVM with equivalent parasitic resistance. .................... 16
Figure 2.9 Output capacitor voltage and inductor current responses to the step
change in load for a closed-loop system. ............................................................. 17
Figure 2.10 Averaged switching cell in second-order Flyback converter. ............................. 18
Figure 2.11 Resulting equivalent averaged cell for the second-order Flyback
converter............................................................................................................... 19

vii
Figure 2.12 Typical inductor and switch waveform assuming CCM. .................................... 21
Figure 2.13 Output voltage and inductor current transients during load change as
predicted by various models. ............................................................................... 23
Figure 2.14 Control-to-output transfer function magnitude and phase in DCM as
predicted by various models. ............................................................................... 27
Figure 2.15 Control-to-output transfer function magnitude and phase in CCM as
predicted by various models. ............................................................................... 28
Figure 2.16 Correction coefficient m1 for the example second-order Flyback
converter............................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.17 Correction coefficient m2 for the example second-order Flyback
converter............................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.18 Duty-ratio constraint d2 for the example second-order Flyback
converter............................................................................................................... 31
Figure 2.19 Inverted matrix condition number for the example second-order
Flyback converter. ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 2.20 Implementation of PAVM. .................................................................................. 32
Figure 2.21 Output capacitor voltage and inductor current transients due to
change in the switch duty cycle as predicted by various models. ........................ 33
Figure 2.22 Closed-loop system of the considered second-order Flyback
converter with PI controller to regulate the output voltage. ................................ 34
Figure 2.23 Closed-loop second-order Flyback converter with PI controller
response to a load change..................................................................................... 35
Figure 2.24 Control to output transfer function magnitude and phase. .................................. 37
Figure 3.1 Averaged detailed circuit of input stage of Flyback converter in steady
state. ..................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.2 Input stage of Flyback converter depicting operation of snubber. ........................ 40
Figure 3.3 Averaged detailed circuit of the output stage Flyback converter
without the snubber in steady state. ..................................................................... 41
Figure 3.4 Output stage topologies of Flyback converter without output snubber. ................ 42
Figure 3.5 Averaged detailed circuit of output stage of full-order Flyback
converter in steady state. ...................................................................................... 43

viii
Figure 3.6 Output side of full-order Flyback converter depicting the snubber
operation............................................................................................................... 44
Figure 3.7 Inverted matrix condition number. ........................................................................ 49
Figure 3.8 Correction coefficient m1 for voltage of output capacitor vC . .............................. 50
Figure 3.9 Correction coefficient m2 for voltage of primary snubber capacitor
vCss . ...................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3.10 Correction coefficient m3 for primary side leakage inductor current
iLpt . ....................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 3.11 coefficient m4 for secondary side leakage inductor current iLst . ......................... 51
Figure 3.12 Calculated function of duty-ratio constraint d2. .................................................. 52
Figure 3.13 Correction coefficient m1 for voltage of output capacitor vC . ............................ 52
Figure 3.14 Correction coefficient m2 for voltage of primary snubber capacitor
vCss . ...................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 3.15 Correction coefficient m3 for voltage of output snubber capacitor
vCds . ...................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 3.16 Correction coefficient m4 for primary side leakage inductor current
iLpt . ....................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 3.17 Correction coefficient m5 for secondary side leakage inductor current
iLst . ....................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 3.18 Block diagram depicting implementation of proposed extended
PAVM. ................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 3.19 Measured and detailed model waveforms for the considered
operating point. .................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.20 Transients of state variables of fourth-order Flyback converter as
predicted by uncorrected PAVM and the proposed corrected PAVM................. 61
Figure 3.21 Transients of state variables of full-order Flyback converter due to
load change. ......................................................................................................... 62
Figure 3.22 Circuit state variables transients due to intense increase of duty cycle. .............. 64

ix
Figure 3.23 Control-to-output transfer function magnitude and phase in DCM as
predicted by proposed PAVM and detailed model. ............................................. 65

x
List of Abbreviations

AVM Average-Value Modeling

CA Circuit Averaged
CCA Corrected Circuit Averaged
CCM Continuous Conduction Mode
CSSA Corrected State-Space Averaged
DCM Discontinuous Conduction Mode
PAVM Parametric Average Value Model(ing)
PWM Pulse Width Modulation
SS State-Space
SSA State-Space Averaged

xi
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation to my research supervisor, Dr. Juri

Jatskevich, for his expert, sincere, valuable guidance and encouragement that he provided to
me during all my years at UBC. The financial support for this research was made possible
through the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant
entitled Modeling and Analysis of Power Electronic and Energy Conversion Systems and
the Discovery Accelerator Supplement Grant entitled Enabling Next Generation of
Transient Simulation Programs lead by Dr. Juri Jatskevich as a sole principal investigator.

I consider it an honor to have Dr. John Madden and Dr. Jose Marti as my committee
members who dedicated their time to provide me constructive comments and take part in my
M.A.Sc. examination.

I would like to thank the following friends and colleagues from the Electrical Energy
Systems Lab at UBC for their continued support and helpful insight toward the problems that
I faced in the course of my research project: Francis Therrien, Hamid Atighechi, Mehmet
Sucu, and Mehrdad Chapariha.

Last but not the least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents for
their patience while I was abroad, and for supporting me spiritually throughout my life.

xii
Chapter 1 : Introduction

1.1 Average-Value Modeling

Modeling and simulation enables engineers to design complicated power electronic
converters, tune their parameters, and detect possible flaws before hardware implementation,
which in turn increases the productivity and result in significant cost savings [1]. Studying
dynamic behavior of power electronic converters using their detailed models in commercial
simulators may be time-consuming and not well-suitable for system-level analysis in
frequency- and time-domains. However, in many applications such as design of controllers
and system-level interactions, we are interested in knowing the average values of circuit
variables rather than their instantaneous waveforms that might include the high-frequency
switching ripples as depicted in Figure 1.1. Therefore, the so-called average-value models
(AVMs) were introduced [2]. Developing accurate AVMs for various power electronic
converters has been an active area of research [2],[3].

Averaged

Detailed

Figure 1.1 A detailed waveform containing switching ripple and the corresponding average-value

The average-value modeling of power electronic systems is receiving significant

attention, as this approach results in improvement of system-level transient simulations as
well as enables automatic linearization and small-signal analysis for design of controllers [4].
The AVMs are also very useful for investigations of system transients and stability [5]. The
three common approaches to obtain the AVMs are the state-space averaging (SSA), the
circuit averaging (CA), and parametric average-value modeling (PAVM). Over the years,
each method has received a significant attention in the literature.

1
1.1.1 State-Space Averaging
State-space averaging is a straightforward and general method of average-value
modeling proposed first in [6] and later extended in [7]-[9], as well as many other
publications. The SSA is used for large and small signal analysis of DC/DC converters. In
state-space description of a system, the differential equations describing the converter circuit
are written in canonical form. Extracting these equations manually is complicated for high-
order converters with parasitics. Therefore, simulation and software tools that can
automatically extract the state-space equation (matrices) become very useful. SSA is valid
when natural frequencies (poles) of system are much lower than the switching frequency of
the circuit [10]. Due to a well-defined structure of this method, its equations can be easily
transformed to the frequency-domain. A corrected full-order SSA model for basic converters
has been introduced in [9]. One of the main challenges in this method is calculating the
length of each subinterval in a switching cycle. When parasitics are placed in the system,
calculation of the duty ratio constraint becomes more complicated. However, a good AVM
should include parasitics so as to approximate the hardware prototype with good accuracy
[11]. Including the parasitics in the state-space AVMs analytically has been considered in
[12] and [13] for basic converters. A recently proposed numerical SSA approach is based on
calculating the duty ratio constraint and correction terms numerically.

1.1.2 Circuit Averaging

Circuit averaging is a well-known technique of deriving equivalent circuit for
converters, wherein the manipulations are carried out based on a circuit diagram [14].
Generally, CA methods replace the PWM switching cell of the converter with averaged
circuit components, which gives physical insight into the converter operation [4]. Including
the parasitics and correct value of losses improves dynamic performance, robustness, and
accuracy of models. This has been generally shown for boost and buck converters in [15] and
[16]. For the Flyback converter, a small-signal ac equivalent circuit is developed for CCM in
[14]. In this work, the averaged circuit is derived based on the method presented in [17] for
obtaining the average current and average voltage drop across semiconductor devices.
Therein, the conduction losses of Flyback converter are incorporated into the averaged

2
circuit, which improves the model accuracy. In this thesis, a corrected CA model is derived
for the Flyback converter circuit that takes into account the basic conduction losses and
properly respects the energy conservation principle [17]-[19].

1.1.3 Parametric Average Value Modeling

Analytical derivation of corrected SSA method could be done simply for ideal and
low-order converters such as boost, buck, and buck-boost converters [8], [9], [20]. But for
high-order power electronic circuits that have parasitics and non-idealities, such as full-order
Flyback converter, the analytical SSA becomes very challenging due to complexity of the
circuit, non-linearity of the currents/voltages waveforms, and large ripple in DCM.
Therefore, a computer-aided version of the methodology, known as parametric average-value
modeling (PAVM), has been proposed and developed in [21]-[24]. The PAVM is based on
corrected full-order version of SSA, and it generates the AVM of system on the basis of
numerically-constructed functions.
In this thesis, the deficiencies of previously developed numerical corrected SSA
model in dealing with non-ideal circuits are presented. The PAVM methodology is further
explored mathematically, and a new set of equations is shown to work very accurately for the
considered Flyback converter. It is envisioned that the new and extended PAVM
methodology can be readily applied to other types of PWM converters with parasitics and
transformers.

1.2 Flyback Converters

The PWM Flyback converters is widely used in computers, power supplies, and
electronics [25]-[26]. Such converters are often used in power electronic applications,
wherein new topologies and control schemes are proposed to improve their performance
[27]. Various design considerations and control approaches are applied to Flyback converter
to achieve higher efficiency and improve output voltage regulation [28]-[29]. Improvements
are made by introducing new snubbers to the circuit [30]-[33], replacement of passive
semiconductor elements by active and controlled switches [28], [34]-[35], changing
switching and modulation schemes [28], [36], and increasing switching frequency in some
applications [36]. The presence of a transformer in the circuit provides a galvanic isolation

3
between the input and output. Galvanic isolation separates grounds with different potentials
and prevents unwanted current flow, e.g. in the case of output short circuit. For miniaturizing
transformer size, converter circuit should operate at high frequency [25], which in turn
results in increase of leakage inductances. Therefore, it becomes necessary to use snubbers in
the circuit in order to alleviate the hard-switching or non-zero current/voltage switching
problem that would happen otherwise. A snubber is not a fundamental part of a power
electronic converter circuit, and adding it to a semiconductor device reduces the stresses to a
level that is tolerable according to that device electrical ratings [37]. The considered full-
order Flyback converter is illustrated in Figure 1.2. This circuit has both primary and
secondary snubbers. The RC snubbers [39] in the circuit help MOSFET and diode operate
under hard-switching conditions. As the converter works with a relatively high switching
frequency (e.g., 250 KHz for the hardware prototype considered in this work), the absence of
snubbers in the circuit would cause failure of MOSFET and generate broadband noise that
can cause problem for data transmission equipment [25]. These dissipative RC snubbers used
dv di
in the circuit reduce the stress on the switches, reduce and , etc. [40]-[41].
dt dt

Rpt Lpt Lst Rst

n
Lm Cds C
Rload v(t)
RCds Rc
vg(t)
Css
RCss Rsw

Figure 1.2 Full-order Flyback converter circuit with snubbers on primary and secondary sides.

4
1.3 Motivations and Objectives
Different power converters have various challenges when it comes to average-value
modeling. In this thesis, I am focusing on the Flyback converter for which only very
simplified average models have been developed in the prior literature. Unlike the classical
DC/DC converters i.e. Buck, Boost, Buck/Boost, Cuk, etc., for which there have been
extensive prior research with advanced results, the Flyback converter includes a transformer
and two RC snubbers in its circuitry, which represents additional challenges for developing
the accurate dynamic models. To the best of our knowledge, these challenges have not been
addressed in the published literature. Thus, the purpose of this work is to develop accurate
and straightforward-to-use AVMs for Flyback converter for both widely used approaches,
CA and SSA. Specifically, the objectives of this research project are:

Objective 1: Development of CA-AVM for Flyback converter

Before considering the full converter circuit with all parasitics and snubbers, we want
to develop the CA-AVM for Flyback converter with basic parasitics that represent the
conduction losses. In working on this objective, we will need to include the energy
conservation principle for both modes of operation, i.e. CCM and DCM, which has not been
achieved before.

Objective 2: Development of SSA-AVM for Flyback converter

To develop SSA-AVM for Flyback converter with basic parasitics that represent the
conduction losses. For simplified (second-order) Flyback converter with ideal components
are piece-wise linear. The objective is to derive a more accurate analytical SSA model and
numerically-constructed AVMs by appropriately correcting the system state-space matrices
and the equations for the duty ratio constraint.

Objective 3: Include snubbers in PAVM

Extend the prior analysis and AVM methodology by including the effects of
snubbers. Flyback converter has one input snubber (for protecting switch) and one output

5
snubber (for protecting diode). The presence of these snubber circuits has been omitted in
most, if not all, prior work on AVM, due to analytical complexity that they represent. It is
very desirable to understand the effects of snubbers for the analytical and PAVM
methodologies, and to develop a generalized methodology that is capable of automatically
including both the conduction parasitics as well as the energy losses due to all possible
snubber circuits.

6
Chapter 2 : Second-order Flyback Converters

As shown in Figure 1.2, the complete full-order Flyback converter circuit includes the
snubbers, the leakage inductors of the transformer, and the conduction losses of the two
switches. Oscillation of electrical energy between inductive and capacitive elements in this
circuit in the form of ringing at switching instants makes the process of deriving the AVMs
particularly challenging. Therefore, in the first step, we consider just very basic conduction
parasitics as depicted in Figure 2.1. The resulting circuit will have only two energy storing
elements, and correspondingly will have a second-order. Such simplified Flyback converter
circuit has been considered in many classical and contemporary research literature sources.

Rpt vfd
Rst
n
iL(t)
Lm Rload
vg(t) C

Mosfet Rc
Rsw
Figure 2.1 Simplified second-order Flyback converter with basic conduction parasitics.

2.1 State-Space Averaging

In state-space average representation, the derivatives of the averaged state variables
are calculated as a function of inputs and state variables. Among different versions of this
method, the corrected full-order state-space averaging [41] is the most accurate one for both
low and high frequencies. In all versions of SSA methods, the state equations for each
topology are weighted relative to the time duration spent in each switching subinterval and
added together in a canonical form. For DCM, each switching cycle can be divided into three
subintervals denoted by d1 , d 2 , and d 3 , respectively. A typical inductor current waveform
for the DCM is shown in Figure 2.2, wherein the converter is assumed to be without any
parasitics and the ideal current waveform is triangular. In the first subinterval ( k = 1) , the
7
switch (transistor) is ON and the diode is OFF. In the second subinterval ( k = 2) , the switch
is OFF and the diode is ON. In third subinterval ( k = 3) , both switch and diode are OFF and
not conducting. The resulting converter topology in each subinterval ( k = 1, 2, 3 ) is depicted
in Figure 2.3 with circuits labeled by (b), (c), and (d) respectively.

ipk
iL, A

d1Ts d2Ts d3Ts

iL

k=1 k=2 k=3

0 t
Ts Time

Figure 2.2 Idealized inductor current waveform assuming DCM.

8
 iL(t)

load

iL(t)

load

iL(t)

load

iL(t)

load

Figure 2.3 Assumed topological instances for the second-order Flyback converter without parasitics; (a)
original circuit; (b) circuit during subinterval 1; (c) circuit during subinterval 2; and (d) circuit during
subinterval 3.

9
 Herein, in-order to accurately represent the dynamics of the converter circuit, a
corrected state-space average-value model (CSS AVM) is considered, wherein the correction
[ ]
matrix, M = diag (d1 + d 2 ) , 1 , is defined based on [9] to compensate for the errors in
1

DCM. The corrected full-order model is defined as,

d x k =3 k =3
= d k A k M x + d k B k u , (2.1)
dt k =1 k =1
The state-space matrices A k and B k are generated for the converter circuit in three
switching subintervals based on the topological states in DCM. These matrices are
summarized in Appendix A. The weighting factors for each subinterval are defined as d1 ,
d 2 , and d 3 = 1 d1 d 2 . As shown in Figure 2.2, for an ideal Flyback converter without
parasitics, the inductor current is triangular and its average value is calculated as
i pk
iL = ( d1 + d 2 ) , (2.2)
2
Since in the first subinterval the switch is closed, the input voltage is directly
connected to the inductor and voltage drop across the inductor is von . Therefore, the peak of

the inductor current is

von
ip = d1Ts . (2.3)
L
Based on (2.2) and (2.3), the duty ratio constraint is calculated as
2 Li L
d2 = d1 . (2.4)
d1Ts von
Since (2.4) is obtained for DCM, to include the CCM, a general expression for the duty ratio
is defined as
2 Li L
d 2 = min d1 , 1 d1 . (2.5)
d1Ts von
In-order to enhance the accuracy of the modeling approach, the basic parasitic losses
should be considered in the AVM. Although adding resistors to model complicates the
procedure, it makes the AVM more accurate and closer to the hardware prototype. As shown
in Figure 2.4, the converter is operating in DCM, and when the circuit parasitics such as

10
resistors and diode voltage drop are included, the value of the current peak would drop from
i p to ip .

ip

i'p
iL , A

d1Ts d2Ts d3Ts

Ts
0

Figure 2.4 Effect of basic parasitics on inductor waveform and its peak in DCM.

Therefore, to include the effect of basic parasitics in the model, the MOSFET ON-
resistance R sw , the transformer primary and secondary side (referred by the turns-ratio a)

resistances R pt and R st , are included using an equivalent resistor depicted the second-order

Flyback converter circuit illustrated in Figure 2.5. Herein, the equivalent resistor is calculated
as
Req = Rsw + R pt + a 2 Rst . (2.6)

v
fd
p'

n
iL(t)

Lm R
load

v (t)
C
g

Rc
Req

PWM PI Controller vref

Figure 2.5 Simplified second-order Flyback converter with basic conduction parasitics represented as an
equivalent resistor in the primary side.

11
 With presence of parasitic resistors in the circuit, the voltage drop across the
magnetizing inductance is no longer equal to von and an equation for the loop on the primary

side becomes
diL
L + Req iL = von . (2.7)
dt
Calculating the local average of (2.7) over the first subinterval, results in the following
d1Ts d1Ts d1Ts
L diL R 1
d + eq iL ( )d = v on ( )d , (2.8)
Ts 0
dt Ts 0
Ts 0

which is then simplified to

d1Ts
L R
i p + eq i L ( )d = d1von . (2.9)
Ts Ts 0

As the waveforms in Figure 2.2 are assumed to be piece-wise linear, (2.9) is further
simplified to
L d1 Req
ip + i p = d1von . (2.10)
Ts 2
Based on (2.10), the new corrected peak of the inductor current shown in Figure 2.2 is
calculated as
d1von
ip = . (2.11)
L d1 Req
+
Ts 2

Substituting (2.11) in (2.2) and solving for d 2 gives the following result
2L
( + Req )i L
d1Ts
d2 = d1 . (2.12)
von
Similar to (2.5) for ideal converter, a general expression of the duty ratio constraint for both
DCM and CCM is obtained as
2L
( d T + Req )iL
d 2 = min 1 s d1 , 1 d 1 . (2.13)
von

12
2.1.1 State-Space Averaging Case Studies
The detailed model of the Flyback converter shown in Figure 2.5 with parameters
summarized in Appendix in B.1. is used as reference for validating the proposed average
value model. Both detailed model and average-value model have been implemented in
Matlab toolboxes, specifically PLECS [42] and Simulink [43] for each model respectively.
Improvements of state-space average-value model are demonstrated in the following
sequential steps.
In the first step, the necessity of using the correction matrix M is shown. After that,
the importance of including parasitics and dissipative elements is explained by efficiency
studies over a wide range of circuit operating conditions. Finally, a proportional-plus-integral
(PI) controller is added to the models, and closed-loop system's ability to regulate the output
voltage is examined.

2.1.1.1 Correction Matrix M

Herein, a study is performed to indicate how the correction matrix M helps the
average value model. As matrix M role becomes evident in DCM, an operating point
defined by load resistance R = 3100 and duty cycle d1 = 0.5 is chosen, and the models are
run until reaching the steady state condition. The corresponding results are shown in Figure
2.6.

13
 -140
Detailed
SSA
CSSA
-145

v ,V
C
See lower plot
-150

-155
-150.96

-150.97
,V

-150.97
C
v

-150.98

-150.98
-150.99
2
1.5

1
i ,A

0.5
L

-0.5
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Time, s
Figure 2.6 Steady state output voltage and inductor current in DCM as predicted by various models: (a)
detailed model; (b) state-space averaged-value model (SS-AVM); and (c) corrected state-space averaged-
value model (CSS-AVM.).

As Figure 2.6 shows, the corrected state-space averaged-value model has a much
better accuracy in computing the average-value of the circuit state variables compared with
the uncorrected version of the model. According to Figure 2.6, the average inductor current
and output voltage predicted by the CSSA-AVM pass through the ripples of the detailed
model as opposed to uncorrected SSA-AVM. Therefore, in the future investigations in this
thesis, we consider the CSSA-AVM as a basis.

14
2.1.1.2 Effect of Including Parasitics on Predicted Efficiency of Converter
Since calculation of efficiency requires several circuit variables, the predicted
efficiency can be considered for evaluating accuracy of different AVMs. In this Subsection,
we summarize the results obtained from many time domain studies for calculating the
efficiency as predicted by each model. Figure 2.7 demonstrates the results obtained by the
CSSA-AVMs with and without considering the transformer and switch equivalent
resistances.
In Figure 2.7, the duty cycle is kept constant at 0.6 and the load is changed from
500 to 2300 in steps of 200 . In Figure 2.8, the load is kept constant at 700 and the
duty cycle is changed from 0.1 to 0.9 . As can be seen in these figures, the CSSA-AVM that
includes the equivalent parasitics resistance predicts the same efficiency as the corresponding
detailed model. At the same time, the CSSA-AVM that does not include the equivalent
parasitics resistance predicts unrealistically high efficiency.

100

95 (b)
Efficiency

(a) Detailed
90 (a),(c) (b) CSS Avg w/o Req
(c) CSS Avg with Req
85

80
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Rload, Ohm
Figure 2.7 Efficiency prediction by various models as a function of the load resistance: (a) detailed model;
(b) CSS-AVM without equivalent parasitic resistance; and (c) CSS-AVM with equivalent parasitic
resistance.

15
 100
(b)
80 (a),(c)

Efficiency
(a) Detailed
(b) CSS Avg w/o Req
60 (c) CSS Avg with Req

40

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

d1
Figure 2.8 Efficiency prediction by various models as a function of duty cycle: (a) detailed model; (b)
CSS-AVM without equivalent parasitic resistance; and (c) CSS-AVM with equivalent parasitic
resistance.

2.1.1.3 Closed-loop System

Next, the accuracy of AVM in predicting the large-signal time-domain transient
behavior is verified in closed loop with PI controller ( K i = 0.07 and K p = 180. ) The

controller is set to regulate output the voltage at 70V . Initially, the converter is assumed to
operate in DCM loaded by 2200 resistor. At t = 0.35 sec , the load is changed by
connecting another resistor of 150 in parallel to the original load.
As it can be observed in Figure 2.10, the inductor current significantly increases and
the converter mode changes from DCM to CCM. Both current and voltage undergo transient
oscillations and settle at a new steady state in CCM. As it can be seen, the considered CSSA-
AVM that includes the same equivalent parasitic resistance as the detailed model predicts the
entire transient response of the detailed model with good accuracy.

16
 -67

Detailed
-68
CSSA

v ,V
-69

C -70

-71
10

6
i ,A
L

0
0.35 0.351 0.352 0.353 0.354 0.355 0.356 0.357
Time, s
Figure 2.9 Output capacitor voltage and inductor current responses to the step change in load for a
closed-loop system.

2.2 Circuit Averaging

The circuit averaging methodology is considered next. In CA, the switching devices
are replaced by dependent sources to derive an equivalent continuous circuit with nonlinear
elements and dependent sources. A further improvement that could be done in CA method is
the correction of power dissipation on the circuit elements according to the energy
conservation principle [18]-[19]. The difference arises due to the fact that the dissipated
power is related to the rms current, whereas the conventional circuit averaging method gives
the average currents [17].

2.2.1 New Large-Signal Averaged Switching Cell

According to the methodology used in [5], [41] for obtaining the averaged circuits of
basic DC-DC converters, a three terminal switching cell containing a diode and a transistor
(MOSFET) and an inductor is modeled by a non-switching cell wherein the switching
17
devices are substituted by dependent voltage and/or current sources. However, in the Flyback
converter shown in Figure 2.10 the switches are separated from each other by the isolation
transformer. Therefore, in this thesis, we introduce a more general switching cell with four
terminal-ports, which in addition to other elements also contains the transformer inside the
cell as depicted in Figure 2.10. Here, the switching cell ports are labeled by a, b, c, and p,
respectively. In-order to construct the averaged circuit, it is required to find a dynamically
accurate equivalent cell for the four-port network. In the second-order Flyback converter
circuit shown in Figure 2.10, the basic parasitics are incorporated. Specifically, the power
dissipation components including the MOSFET ON-resistance R sw , the transformer primary

and secondary side (referred by the corresponding turns-ratio) resistances R pt and Rst , are

added up together and represented by an equivalent resistor defined in (2.6). For convenience
of analysis, the element Req is brought outside the switching cell as shown in Figure 2.10.

vfd
p p'

n
c

iL (t)

Lm Rload
vg(t)
C v
(t)

Rc
Req
a' a b

Figure 2.10 Averaged switching cell in second-order Flyback converter.

2.2.2 Ideal Averaged Cell

Based on Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.10, and considering each subinterval, the following
expressions for the current through switch and the voltage across diode can be obtained for
the switching cycle,

18
 iL t [0, d1Ts ]

isw = 0 t [d1Ts , ( d1 + d 2 )Ts ], (2.14)
0
t [( d1 + d 2 )Ts , Ts ]

v pb nvca t [0, d1Ts ]

vdiode = 0 t [ d1Ts , ( d1 + d 2 )Ts ] . (2.15)
v t [( d1 + d 2 )Ts , Ts ]
pb

Averaging (2.14) and (2.15) over the switching cycle Ts yields

d1i pk d1iL
isw = = , (2.16)
2 d1 + d 2

vdiode = (1 d 2 )v pb d1n vca . (2.17)

Finally, to get the equivalent average circuit cell, the transistor and diode are replaced
by dependent current and voltage sources as shown in Figure 2.11. The values of these
sources are defined by (2.16) and (2.17) respectively. To get the final AVM, the derived
averaged cell of Figure 2.11 is inserted back into the original converter circuit shown in
Figure 2.10. Transformers are designed to transmit AC voltages but no the DC voltages. In
the following figure, the transformer represents a dependent voltage source wherein the
conversion ratio is equal to n ( i.e. the output voltage is equal to n times input voltage).
c p
n
iL(t) vdiode
Lm

isw

a b
Figure 2.11 Resulting equivalent averaged cell for the second-order Flyback converter.

2.2.3 Energy Conservation Principle

For a second-order Flyback converter considered in this Chapter, the conduction
losses are represented by the equivalent series resistance of the output capacitor, the switch
on resistance, and the transformer primary and secondary side resistances, respectively.
19
Neglecting these basic parasitics will lead to obvious discrepancies between the AVM and
the detailed model. According to the energy conservation principle [17], [18], and [19] the
energy loss in the resistance is characterized by the RMS value of the current rather than the
average value of the current. Thus, assuming the DCM or boundary mode as in [17], [18],
and [19], and the current waveform depicted in Figure 2.2, the average and RMS values can
be calculated as follows
t
1 d1i pk
(isw ) ave =
Ts i
t Ts
L (t ) dt =
2
, (2.18)

t
1 d1
(isw ) rms = i (t )dt =
2
L i pk . (2.19)
Ts t Ts
3

Therefore, in-order to have the same energy loss in Req as in the detailed model, an

equivalent resistance should be appropriately modified (corrected). On the basis of work

presented in [17], the dissipated energy on resistance in each switching cycle is calculated,
and the equivalent resistance value is modified accordingly to match the required energy
2
dissipation. Based on (2.18) and (2.19), the energy dissipated on Req is equal to (isw )rms ReqTs .

The energy conservation principle implies that, in each switching cycle, the energy dissipated
in the averaged circuit has to be equal to its actual value as it would be predicted by the
, for
detailed switching circuit. We therefore introduce a modified equivalent resistance, Req

which the energy conservation principle holds. Thus, considering (2.18) and (2.19), the
following energy balance should hold:
(isw )2ave Req Ts = (isw )2rms ReqTs (2.20)

which yields the following formula for calculating the modified equivalent resistance,
4 Req
=
Req . (2.21)
3d1
Finally, since a new resistance is introduced to the converter circuit, the equation for
the duty ratio constraint d 2 needs to be modified as well. In particular, when the switch is
closed, the voltage across the inductor is
4 Req iL
von = vg . (2.22)
3 d1 + d 2

20
Substituting (2.22) into (2.4), we obtain
2 Li L
d2 = d1 . (2.23)
4 ReqiL
d1Ts (v g )
3 d1 + d 2

Finally, isolating d 2 on one side, an explicit expression for the new duty ratio constraint is
derived,
2L 4
( + Req )iL
d1Ts 3
d2 = d1 . (2.24)
vg

Equation (2.21) is derived on the basis of DCM. As shown in Figure 2.12, in CCM,
the inductor current never goes to zero and the switching interval is divided into two
subintervals. Therefore, (2.18) and (2.19) are no longer valid for CCM, and new relationships
need to be re-derived.
iL , A

iL
ave d1Ts d2Ts

Ts

0
isw , A

ipk
iL
ave

d1Ts d2Ts

Ts
0

Figure 2.12 Typical inductor and switch waveform assuming CCM.

According to Figure 2.12, the average current of the switch is

(isw ) ave = d1 (iL ) ave . (2.25)

21
The RMS value of the switch current is
2
d1 / 2
i pk
(isw ) rms = t + (iL ) ave dt , (2.26)
d1 / 2
2 d1
which after taking the integration and simplifying manipulations gives

i pk
2

(isw ) rms
= d1 (iL ) ave +
2 . (2.27)
12

In (2.27), i pk denotes the current ripple that is shown in Figure 2.12, and is calculated based

on the following formula

v Req (iL ) ave
i pk = d1Ts g . (2.28)
L
To observe the energy balance in CCM in the averaged circuit, (2.25) and (2.27) are inserted
, which yields
into (2.20) and the resulting equation is solved for Req

Req
2
i pk
=
Req 1 + . (2.29)
d1 12(iL ) ave
2

Depending on the converter mode of operation, either (2.21) or (2.29) will be the correct
resistor value such that the energy conservation principle accurately predicts/captures the
energy dissipation in both DCM and CCM, respectively.

2.2.4 Circuit Averaging Case Studies

The parameters of the Flyback converter considered in this Section, including
parasitics, are summarized in Appendix B.1. The detailed model has been implemented in
Matlab/Simulink using PLECS toolbox, and it is used as a reference for evaluating the
accuracy of averaged models derived in previous Subsections. To demonstrate the benefits of
the new AVMs, we have implemented the following models: circuit-averaged (CA); the
corrected circuit-averaged (CCA); conventional state-space-averaged (SSA); and
compensated state-space-averaged (CSSA) models, respectively. The large-signal time-
domain and small-signal frequency-domain studies are performed on all models, and the
results are compared with reference solutions produced by the detailed switching model.

22
2.2.4.1 Time-Domain Transient
An informative time-domain study for analysis of PWM converters should span
different conduction modes. In the transient study considered in this Subsection, the duty
cycle is kept constant at d1 = 0.381 . Initially, the converter is assumed to operate in a steady
state in DCM under load Rload = 2500 . Then, at t = 0.3s , a parallel resistor R p = 200 is

added to the load of the system. The converter undergoes a large transient and the mode of
operation changes to CCM. The corresponding transient responses produced by the
considered models are superimposed in Figure 2.13. As can be seen in Figure 2.13, the
decrease in load resistance results in decrease of the output voltage. The actual values of the
output voltage and inductor current in steady state in DCM (before transient) and in CCM
(after transient) as predicted by the considered models are summarized in Table 2.1.

-60

-70 (d)

(b)
(a),(c),(e)
-80
vout , V

(a)Detailed
-90 (b) C Avg
(c) CC Avg

(d) SS Avg
-100 (e) CSS Avg

-110
5
(b)
4

3 (d)
iL , A

2 (a)
(c),(e)

0
0.3 0.301 0.302 0.303 0.304 0.305
Time, s
Figure 2.13 Output voltage and inductor current transients during load change as predicted by various
models.

23
 Table 2.1 Output voltage and inductor current values and errors as predicted by different averaged
models in DCM and CCM.
Output voltage Inductor current
Model
DCM CCM DCM CCM
Detailed Model Value -101.87 -66.68 0.46 3.49
Value -102.61 -70.26 0.46 3.68
CA-AVM
Error 0.81% 5.36% 0.62% 5.34%
Value -101.35 -66.71 0.45 3.5
CCA-AVM
Error 0.42% 0.03% 0.61% 0.01%
Value -94.17 -66.69 0.48 3.49
SSA-AVM
Error 7.48% 0.01% 4.19% 0.02%
Value -101.79 -66.69 0.46 3.49
CSSA-AVM
Error 0.01% 0.01% 0.18% 0.02%

As it can be seen in Table 2.1, the accuracy of the CCA-AVM is significantly

improved as compared to the CA-AVM, which is achieved by modifying the equivalent
conduction loss resistance Req according to the energy conservation principle. Figure 2.13

also indicates that when value of Req is not corrected (CA-AVM), the inductor current takes

a longer time to settle down to its steady state value and it oscillates with large amplitude
during the transient. But in corrected averaged circuit (CCA-AVM), the value of Req is larger

(the energy is dissipated faster), and no oscillations are observed. It can also be noted that
this model response is somewhat slower (more dissipative) than what is predicted by the
detailed model.
The results from conventional state-space averaging (SSA-AVM) method, wherein no
correction matrix is added, and that of the corrected state-space averaging (CSSA-AVM), are
also shown in Figure 2.13 and Table 2.1. As indicated in Table 2.1, the absence of correction
matrix in conventional state-space average-value model causes an obvious error in DCM in
predicting state variables average value even in steady state. This source of error is
significantly reduced when the state-space model is corrected (CSSA-AVM).
To get more insight into the difference between the corrected and un-corrected
circuit-averaged models, their eigenvalues have been extracted in DCM and CCM and are
summarized in Table 2.2. As it can be seen in Table 2.2, both models have very similar real
eigenvalues in DCM, which implies that the system will not have oscillatory behavior, as is
verified in Figure 2.13. However, when the converter is in transient going into CCM, the CA-

24
AVM shows some oscillations. As can be seen in Table 2.2, the eigenvalues in CCM are
complex, and the imaginary part of complex eigenvalues for the CA-AVM is dominant,
which explains the oscillations. At the same time, the CCA-AVM in CCM has very large
negative real part of the eigenvalues, which explains its significantly more damped response.

Table 2.2 Eigenvalues of average-value models in DCM and CCM.

Models DCM CCM
-1.14092e6
Circuit averaging (CA-AVM) -1377.08 j 4076.81
-36.143
-1.14101e6
Corrected circuit avg.( CCA-AVM) -3386.10 j 2835.13
-36.140
-1.06311e6
State-space averaging (SSA-AVM) -3397.00 j 2823.0
-45.90
-1.14097e6
Corrected state-space avg. (CSSA-AVM) -3396.99 j 2823.0
-36.141

The converter efficiency is considered as an important parameter, and it is very

desirable that the averaged models predict its value with high accuracy. To compare the
considered models, it is assumed that the converter operates in steady state and in DCM
( d1 = 0.381 , Rload = 2500 ) and CCM ( d1 = 0.381 , Rload = 185 ). The predicted efficiency
as calculated by different models is summarized in Table 2.3. As can be seen in Table 2.3,
the circuit averaging (CA-AVM) model over-estimates the efficiency in both operating
modes. At the same time, the corrected circuit averaging (CCA-AVM) model predicts the
results that are much closer to the reference, especially in DCM. Both state-space averaging
models predict the steady state efficiency in CCM quite well. However, in DCM, the
conventional state-space averaging model is a bit off.

Table 2.3 Efficiency comparison of average-value models.

Efficiency DCM CCM
Detailed model (reference) 97.11% 90.20%
Circuit averaging (CA-AVM) 98.31% 95.08%
Corrected circuit avg.( CCA-AVM) 97.10% 90.27%
State-space averaging (SSA-AVM) 97.60% 90.25%
Corrected state-space avg. (CSSA-AVM). 97.52% 90.25%

25
 It can also be noted in Table 2.3 that corrected circuit averaging (CCA-AVM) model
over-estimates the losses in CCM. This model also has higher damping in CCM as compared
to the other models based on the transient study in Figure 2.13 and the eigenvalues in Table
2.2. This phenomenon is attributed to the fact that the energy conservation correction
becomes over-compensated (too high) when the
assumed the DCM, and the value of Req

converter operates in CCM.

2.2.4.2 Frequency-Domain Analysis

To verify the small-signal behavior of the considered models, the control-to-output
transfer function has been extracted and compared with that of the detailed model. This
transfer function can be used for design and implementation of various controllers. There are
different methods of obtaining frequency response of a system such as AC sweep, impulse
response, small-signal injection, and linearization around an operating point. Figure 2.14
shows extracted transfer function of the averaged models and the detailed system for the
operating point defined by d1 = 0.381 and Rload = 2500 using the Matlab Simulink and
PLECS toolboxes.
As can be seen in Figure 2.14, the averaged models predict the small-signal control-
to-output transfer function in DCM with good agreement with the detailed switching model.
For higher frequencies, the averaged models become somewhat less accurate because at these
frequencies the basic assumptions of averaging are no longer valid. A more detailed view of
Figure 2.14 reveals that proposed corrected state-space averaged model and corrected
averaged circuit model predict the magnitude and phase with a very good match to the
detailed model.

26
 100
Detailed

Magnitude, dB
C Avg
50 CC Avg
SS Avg
0 CSS Avg

-50
200
Phase, deg

150

100

50
0 1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency, Hz
Figure 2.14 Control-to-output transfer function magnitude and phase in DCM as predicted by various
models.

To investigate the difference between the circuit-averaged models further, the

control-to-output transfer function has been extracted in CCM, and the results are
superimposed in Figure 2.15. As can be seen in Figure 2.15, a slight bump in the magnitude
curve predicted by the circuit-averaged (CA-AVM) model corresponds to its complex
eigenvalue in CCM around 700 Hz frequency, which is consistent with the results shown in
Table 2.2 and the transient observed in Figure 2.13. At the same time, the corrected circuit-
averaged (CCA-AVM) model is more dissipative which also improves its accuracy.

27
 100
Detailed

Magnitude, dB
C Avg
50
CC Avg

-50
200

100
Phase, deg

-100
0 1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency, Hz
Figure 2.15 Control-to-output transfer function magnitude and phase in CCM as predicted by various
models.

2.3 Numerical Average Value Modeling

Analytical derivation of an average model that is valid in different operation modes is
difficult, especially when parasitics and non-idealities are incorporated into the converter
circuit. Recently, a numerical computer-aided method of obtaining the average-value model
of power electronic systems has been proposed based on corrected state-space average-value
modeling, wherein several parametric functions are obtained using the detailed simulation.

2.3.1 Parametric Average Value Modeling

The parametric average-value modeling approach proposed in [23] and [24] is based
on corrected full-order state-space averaged model
d x k =3 k =3
= d k A k M x + d k B k u , (2.30)
dt k =1 k =1

28
Unlike (2.1) where the correction matrix is derived analytically, here M is a diagonal

correction matrix which is computed numerically; dk is the relative length of subintervals for

each topology within the switching interval; A k and B k are state-space matrices; u is the
input vector; and x is the vector of averaged state variables [44]. In CCM, there is no third
subinterval and k = 1 , 2 .
When the state variables are in steady state condition, their derivatives are equal to
zero. Thus, under steady state condition, (2.30) becomes equal to zero, yielding
k =3 k =3
0 = d k A k M x + d k B k u . (2.31)
k =1 k =1
Solving (2.31) for M x gives

1
k =3 k =3
p = M x = d k A k d k B k u . (2.32)
k =1 k =1
Using (2.32), the following expression can be utilized to calculate M (d1 , iL ) for each
operating point
p( j )
M ( j, j ) = . (2.33)
x( j)

Expression (2.33) gives the diagonal elements of correction matrix M ( d1 , iL ) , which

makes the correction terms of state variables independent of each other. For the considered
Flyback converter, the parametric functions have been calculated using the approach
described in [22]. Figure 2.16 and Figure 2.17 show the correction term for inductor current,
M (1,1) = m1 , and capacitor voltage, M (2,2 ) = m2 , respectively.
As Figure 2.17 shows, when the converter enters DCM, the correction coefficient m1
starts increasing to compensate for the deficiency in conventional state-space averaging in
predicting the average value of the discontinuous state variables. The value of m2 shown in
Figure 2.17 is always close to one, because the voltage of output capacitor is a continuous
state variable and does not require much (if any) correction.
Figure 2.18 illustrates the duty ratio constraint over an extended range of operating
k =3
conditions. Since calculating vector p is accompanied by inversion of matrix k =1 d k A k ,

numerical robustness of the procedure depends on the condition number of this matrix. The
29
condition number of this matrix has been calculated and is depicted in Figure 2.19. As can
be seen in Figure 2.19, the condition number remains relatively small over the range of
considered operating conditions, suggesting that the error resulting from the matrix inversion
is negligible.

2
DCM
1.5 CCM
1
m

1
4000
2000
R, Ohms
0 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 d
1
Figure 2.16 Correction coefficient m1 for the example second-order Flyback converter.

1.1
1.05
m2

1
0.95

4000
1
2000 0.5
R, Ohms d
0 0 1

Figure 2.17 Correction coefficient m2 for the example second-order Flyback converter.

30
 1

2
d 0.5

0
0
d 0.5 4000
1 2000 3000
1 0 1000 R, Ohms
Figure 2.18 Duty-ratio constraint d2 for the example second-order Flyback converter.

400
Condition number

200

0
4000
1
2000 0.5 d
R, Ohms 1
0 0
Figure 2.19 Inverted matrix condition number for the example second-order Flyback converter.

The output variables in PAVM are calculated on the basis of the following equation
k =3 k =3
y = d k C k M x + d k D k u . (2.34)
k =1 k =1
After all parametric functions have been calculated numerically, the AVM is
implemented according to the block diagram depicted in Figure 2.20.

31
 Figure 2.20 Implementation of PAVM.

2.3.2 Numerical Average Value Modeling Case Studies

The same second-order Flyback converter with parameters summarized in Appendix
B.1 is considered here. For convenience, the switch ON resistance and transformer primary
and secondary resistances are added together and indicated by Req in the AVMs. The detailed

model of the considered Flyback converter has been implemented in PLECS, and the AVMs,
including PAVM and CA-AVM (Examined in section 2.2), have been implemented in
Matlab/Simulink.

2.3.2.1 Time-Domain Transient Studies

For model verification, a fast change in the MOSFETs duty cycle is considered in
this study. Initially, the converter operates in steady state in DCM defined by d1 = 0.3 and

Rload = 2500 . Then, the duty cycle is increased from 0.3 to 0.8 over a period of
0.05 second. After the transition, the converter operates in CCM with the new duty cycle.
Figure 2.21 shows the state variables of the detailed and average models during this
transition. In-order to compare the precision of average models, their predicted inductor
current and output voltage for the DCM and CCM are summarized in Table 2.4. In addition,
the converter efficiency predicted by each model is calculated and summarized in Table 2.5.
As can be observed in Figure 2.21, the results of the detailed model imply that when
converter duty cycle is changed, the magnitude of both output capacitor voltage and inductor
current increases after undergoing some transient. According to plots in Figure 2.21, the state
32
variables predicted by the PAVM is very accurate and completely overlaps with average
values from the detailed model. However, voltage predicted by the circuit averaging model
(CA-AVM) clearly deviates from the detailed model during transients and in steady state at
the end of simulation. Similar discrepancies are observed for the inductor current. In fact,
these deficiencies in the circuit averaging model have two reasons. First, the derived
averaged circuit in [27] is valid for DCM and light CCM operating conditions, while in our
case study after the increase in duty cycle the converter is working in heavy CCM. Second,
the energy conservation principle is not used in this circuit averaging model, and the CA-
AVM dissipates less power than that of detailed model.

Det. Sim.
-100 C Avg
PAVM
vC , V

-200

-300

-400
10

6
iL , A

0
0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38
Time, s
Figure 2.21 Output capacitor voltage and inductor current transients due to change in the switch duty
cycle as predicted by various models.

33
 Table 2.4 Output voltage and inductor current as predicted by various models for the two steady state
operating points.
Output voltage Inductor current
Model
DCM CCM DCM CCM
Det. Model Value -80.23 -332.38 0.33 3.2
Value -80.81 -338.72 0.33 3.25
CA-AVM
Error 0.73% 1.91% 0.59% 1.7%
Value -80.23 -332.38 0.33 3.2
PAVM
Error 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 2.5 Converter efficiency as predicted by various models for the two steady state operating points.
Efficiency DCM CCM
Det. Model 97.14% 92.04%
CA-AVM 98.17% 94.05%
PAVM 97.46% 92.31%

In the next study, we test the PAVM functionality in a closed-loop system with
commonly-used PI controller [45]. Here, a PI controller with parameters K i = 0.05 and

K p = 110 is chosen. In-order to prevent error accumulation during the rise time, the output of

controller integrator is limited by a saturation block. The controller diagram together with the
converter plant is shown in Figure 2.23.

ki
s
Ref. Converter Model Output
kp

Figure 2.22 Closed-loop system of the considered second-order Flyback converter with PI controller to
regulate the output voltage.

In the following closed-loop study, load is initially set to Rload = 220 and converter

is assumed to operate in CCM. Then, at t = 0.2 sec, the load Rload is increased to 1800 . As

Figure 2.23 illustrates, the controller is able to regulate the output voltage at 70 V within a
34
short settling time and relatively small overshoot. Also, as can be seen in Figure 2.23, the
results predicted by the PAVM are in very good agreement with the detailed model.

-65
Det. Sim.
PAVM
vC , V

-70

-75
4

2
i ,A
L

0.40

0.35
Control signal

0.3

0.25

0.2
0.19 0.195 0.2 0.205 0.21 0.215 0.22
Time, s
Figure 2.23 Closed-loop second-order Flyback converter with PI controller response to a load change.

To give the reader an idea how the simulation speed of the AVM may differ from that
of the original detailed switching model, Table 2.6 compares the simulation speed of models
in the last study. In order to make the comparison reasonable, the same solver Ode23s with
relative/absolute tolerances set to 1e-3 were used for each model. As can be seen in Table
35
2.6, the detailed model handles all switching events and requires very large number of time
steps (90,8313) and takes appropriately long time (70.43s) to complete the study. At the same
time, the PAVM is not switching, which allows it to use larger time steps (taking only 2,397
time steps) and complete the same study much faster (0.35s). This very significant increase in
simulation speed while preserving the slower dynamics at the control and input-output
terminals of the converter suggest that such AVMs can be used very effectively for the
system-level studies where the focus is on the input-output interactions and controller design,
and where the details of the switching waveforms can therefore be neglected.

Table 2.6 Simulation speed comparison of the detailed and average models in closed-loop transient study.
Model # of time steps Elapsed time, s
Det. Sim. 908,313 70.43
PAVM 2,397 0.35

36
2.3.2.2 Frequency-Domain Analysis
To demonstrate the performance of the AVMs in frequency-domain, we consider the
control-to-output voltage transfer function. The considered operating point of interest in
defined by the steady state operating condition with d1 = 0.381 and Rload = 2500 , with
corresponds to the DCM. The corresponding transfer functions have been extracted with
Matlab/Simulink and PLECS toolboxes, and the results are shown in Figure 2.24.
As Figure 2.24 shows, the derived CA-AVM and PAVM are in a good agreement
with the detailed model at frequencies up to around 100 KHz. At frequencies above 100
KHz, the AVMs start deviating from the detailed model a little bit. This is because the
primary assumptions used for deriving the average models are valid below the switching
frequency.

100
Detailed
Magnitude, dB

C Avg
50 PAVM

-50
200

150
Phase, deg

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency, Hz
Figure 2.24 Control to output transfer function magnitude and phase.

37
Chapter 3 : Full-order Flyback Converter

Snubbers bring many benefits to the hardware circuit (Figure 1.2) as they enable
semiconductor components to switch in a softer mode and reduce the voltage stresses. At the
same time, snubbers also increase power loss of the circuit and make modeling of power
electronic systems more complicated. The full-order Flyback converter would typically
include two snubbers: one snubber is used on the input side to protect MOSFET; and another
one is used on the output side of converter to absorb spikes resulting from the secondary side
leakage inductance.
In this work, it is shown that due to the presence of RC snubbers of in Flyback
converter, the previously established SSA-AVM method is not capable of presenting an
accurate AVM. Therefore, a new PAVM is developed which corrects the average values of
state variables in a more general different way. The methodology is based on extending the
SSA formulation to include the corrections are of the state variables as well as the state-space
matrices (their specific entries corresponding to snubbers).

3.1 Effect of Input Snubber in SSA

The input RC snubber absorbs energy stored in primary side leakage inductance when
the MOSFET opens. When the switch opens at the end of the ON state, the energy stored in
the primary leakage inductance results in a voltage surge across the switch. The RC snubber
protects semiconductor device by suppressing voltage transients across it. The leakage
inductor energy is absorbed and then released back by capacitor of the snubber, which causes
resonance and oscillation in the waveforms of the circuit at switching moments. This energy
is gradually dissipated in the large resistor of the RC snubber. As shown in Figure 3.2, based
on volt-second balance (for inductors) and charge balance (for capacitors) average value of
vCss in steady state can be calculated as follows

v Css = v g R pt i Lpt . (3.1)

38
 Rpt iLpt

Output
iLm
vg(t)

Input
vCss vsw
RCss Rsw

Figure 3.1 Averaged detailed circuit of input stage of Flyback converter in steady state.

According to Figure 3.2, in the first topology (k = 1) , when the switch is closed, the
input voltage source transfers energy to the magnetizing and leakage inductors as the current
increases. During this subinterval, the snubber does not play a significant role, and the
capacitor energy is dissipated on the resistors of snubber and switch. During this subinterval
(k = 1) , the capacitor current is

d vCss 1 Rsw
iCss = C ss = vCss + iLpt . (3.2)
dt Rsw + Rss Rsw + Rss

When the switch opens, second topology (k = 2) , the energy in the magnetizing

branch is transmitted into the secondary side to feed the load. In this subinterval, the snubber
capacitor becomes active and is charged with energy from the current in leakage inductor.
Finally when the current of magnetizing branch goes to zero, the diode stops conducting, and
converter enters the third topology (k = 3) . According to Figure 3.2, during these

subintervals (k = 2, 3) , the capacitor current is

d vCss
iCss = C ss = iLpt . (3.3)
dt

39
 iLpt(t) Rpt Lpt

Output
Lm
vg(t) iCss(t)

Input
Switch ON
(K = 1)
Css
RCss Rsw

iLpt(t) Rpt Lpt

Output
Lm
vg(t) Input
iCss(t)
Switch OFF Css
(K = 2, 3)
RCss Rsw

Figure 3.2 Input stage of Flyback converter depicting operation of snubber.

Based on conventional SSA-AVM, averaging the state-space equations (3.2) and

(3.3) over the entire switching cycle gives

iLpt + (1 d1 ) iLpt
d vCss 1 Rsw
iCss = C ss = d1 vCss + (3.4)
dt Rsw + Rss Rsw + Rss
In steady state, the derivative term in (3.4) goes to zero, and vCss is obtained as

Rsw + (1 d1 ) Rss
vCss = iLpt (3.5)
d1

Equation (3.5) shows that if iLpt is calculated correctly by the SSA-AVM, then

vCss would be calculated correctly too by the AVM and does not need any additional

correction. Therefore, the correction term for vCss should be close to one. This will be proven
with numerical graphs in the following sections.

40
3.2 Effect of Output Snubber in SSA-AVM
The output snubber protects the diode from voltage and current spikes. To investigate
the effect of output snubber in SSA-AVM, we examine and compare the output stage of the
Flyback converter with and without the snubber branch.

3.2.1 Output Stage without Snubber (4th Order Flyback Converter)

When the converter circuit is operating in steady state, the average current going into
the output capacitor during a switching cycle is zero, and the average voltage across the
inductors is zero too. Therefore, the averaged detailed circuit of output stage of Flyback
converter could be presented as shown in Figure 3.3.

iLst Rst vd

vC

Output
Rload
Input

Rc

Figure 3.3 Averaged detailed circuit of the output stage Flyback converter without the snubber in steady
state.

According to Figure 3.3, the average value of capacitor voltage in steady state could
be calculated as
vC = Rload iLst . (3.6)
To calculate the predicted average value of the output capacitor voltage by conventional
SSA-AVM, all topologies occurring during a switching cycle have to be considered.

41
 Lst Rst iLst(t)
iC(t)
C

Output
Diode OFF
Rload

Input
(K=1, 3)
Rc

Lst Rst iLst(t)

iC(t)
C

Output
Diode ON
Input
Rload
(K = 2)
Rc

Figure 3.4 Output stage topologies of Flyback converter without output snubber.

According to Figure 3.4, when the diode is in ON (k = 2) , the charging current of

output capacitor is
d vC 1
iC = C = vC + i Lst . (3.7)
dt Rload + RC

In the first and third topology (k = 1, 3) , the current of secondary side leakage inductor

becomes zero (k = 3) and increases to a positive value (k = 1) . During these subintervals,

the diode stops conducting. During this subinterval, the output capacitor discharges and
supplies the load with current
d vC 1
iC = C = vC . (3.8)
dt Rload + Rc
Based on SSA-AVM, using (3.7) and (3.8), we take the average of the output capacitor
current over the entire switching cycle
d vC 1
iC = C = vC + d 2 iLst . (3.9)
dt Rload + RC

The derivative term in (3.8) goes to zero in steady state. Solving the resulting equation for vC
in steady state gives,
vC = d 2 (Rload + RC )i Lst . (3.10)

42
 Equations (3.6) and (3.10) can be used to calculate the correction term for vC

analytically. In particular, (3.10) shows that for fourth-order Flyback converter, if iLst is

calculated correctly, then vC is accurate too, and its correspondent correction term will be
close to one. This is observation will be proven with numerical graphs in the later sections
(Section 3.4).

3.2.2 Output Stage with Snubber (5th Order Flyback Converter)

Figure 3.5 shows the averaged circuit of the output stage of full-order Flyback
converter in steady state. According to Figure 3.5, and on the basis of charge balance for the
output capacitor, the average output capacitor voltage is
vC = Rload iLst . (3.11)
Similarly, the average value of the snubber capacitor voltage is
vCds = Rst iLst . (3.12)

iLst Rst vd

vCds vC
Output

Rload
Input

RCds Rc

Figure 3.5 Averaged detailed circuit of output stage of full-order Flyback converter in steady state.

According to Figure 3.6, when the diode is ON (k = 2) , the output snubber capacitor
charges with current coming from transformer. In this subinterval, the snubber branch is
parallel with the main output capacitor and it absorbs part of the transmitted energy to the
secondary side. The output capacitor current in this subinterval is
d vC 1
iC = C = vC
dt RC + ( RCds || Rload )
(3.13)
Rload ( RCds || Rload )
+ vCds + i Lst .
[Rload + RC ][RCds + (RC || Rload )] ( RCds || Rload ) + RC
Correspondingly, the snubber capacitor current is

43
 d vCds Rload
iCds = C ds = v
dt [Rload + RCds ][RC + (RCds || Rload )] C
(3.14)
1 ( RC || Rload )
vCds + i Lst .
RCds + ( RC || Rload ) ( RC || Rload ) + RCds

The diode turns OFF in the first and third subintervals (k = 1, 3) . In the third

subinterval, the current stored in secondary side leakage inductor results into a voltage spike
that is partly absorbed by the output snubber capacitor. In this subinterval, the output
capacitor current is
d vC 1
iC = C = vC , (3.15)
dt Rc || Rload
and the snubber capacitor current is
d vCds
iCds = C ds = i Lst . (3.16)
dt

Lst Rst iLst(t)

iCds(t) iC(t)
Cds C
Output

Rload
Input

Diode ON
(K = 2) RCds Rc

Lst Rst iLst(t)

iCds(t) iC(t)
Cds C
Output

Diode OFF
Rload
Input

(K=1, 3) RCds Rc

Figure 3.6 Output side of full-order Flyback converter depicting the snubber operation.

Based on SSA-AVM, we take the averages of the output capacitor current and the
snubber capacitor voltage over the entire switching cycle, respectively, which yields

44
 d vC (1 d 2 ) d2
iC = C = + v c
dt RC || Rload RC + ( RCds || Rload ) (3.17)
d 2 Rload d ( R || R )
+ vCds + 2 Cds load i Lst ,
[Rload + RC ][RCds + (RC || Rload )] ( RCds || Rload ) + RC
and
d vCds d 2 Rload
iCds = C ds = v
dt [Rload + RCds ][RC + (RCds || Rload )] C
(3.18)
d2 d 2 ( RC || Rload )
vCds + + (1 d 2 ) i Lst .
RCds + ( RC || Rload ) ( RC || Rload ) + RCds
Note that in steady state, (3.17) and (3.18) are equal to zero. Solving (3.15) for vC and (3.16)

for vCds gives the respective average values as predicted by SSA-AVM in steady state

d 2 Rload d ( R || R )
vC = vCds + 2 Cds load i Lst
[Rload + RC ][RCds + (Rc || Rload )] ( RCds || Rload ) + RC
1
(3.19)
(1 d 2 ) d2
+ ,
RC || Rload RC + ( RCds || Rload )
and
(RCds + ( RC || Rload ) ) d 2 Rload
vCds = [R v C
d2 load + RCds ][RC + (RCds || Rload )]
(3.20)
(RCds + ( RC || Rload ) ) d 2 ( RC || Rload )
+ (1 d 2 ) i Lst .
d2 ( RC || Rload ) + RCds
As shown in (3.19) and (3.20), the vC and vCds depend on two state variables.

Specifically, the variable vC is a function of iLst and vCds ; and vCds is a function of iLst and

vC . Moreover, vC and vCds are dependent on each other. This means that for accurate AVM,
both of these state variables will have to be corrected by appropriate functions. Therefore, in
the case of full-order Flyback converter, the correction terms for vC and vCds are not expected
to be close to one. This will be proven numerically in Section 3.4.

45
3.3 Generalized Numerical SSA-AVM
In conventional SSA-AVM [6], state equation has the following form
d x k =3 k =3
= d k A k x + d k B k u, (3.21)
dt k =1 k =1
which is a weighted sum of state equations corresponding to the topological instances of the
detailed converter circuit. In [9], a correction matrix M is added to (3.21) to correct for the
errors in DCM. Therefore, a new formula was proposed which is given in (2.1).
However, for a full-order Flyback converter, even the continuous state variables such
as output capacitor voltage, have to be corrected due to the presence of snubbers. In the
extended methodology, we consider a possibility for correction of all state variables in the
circuit. A vector of state variables of the circuit has the following general form
x = [ x1 x2 ... x n ]T . (3.22)
In the case of full-order Flyback converter, this vector is

[
x = vC vCss vCds i Lpt i Lst ] T
. (3.23)

For second/fourth-order Flyback converters, fewer state variables will be included as

appropriate for each case. The generalized diagonal correction matrix has the following form
M = diag (m1 , m2 , ... mn ). (3.24)

Next, we define the state vectors of the conventional SSA-AVM as x SSA , and that of the

generalized corrected SSA-AVM as x C SSA , respectively. Thereafter, the correction matrix is

used to relate the state vectors of the conventional and the generalized corrected SSA as
x C SSA = M x SSA . (3.25)

The state model (3.21) is corrected by inserting x CSSA from (3.25), which yields

d x C SSA k =3 k =3
M = d k A k M x C SSA + d k B k u, (3.26)
dt k =1 k =1
which after multiplying both sides by M 1 gives
d x C SSA k =3 k =3
= M 1 d k A k M x C SSA + M 1 d k B k u. (3.27)
dt k =1 k =1

46
Therefore, (3.27) would provide the correct average values of all state variables if matrix M
is computed appropriately. It is also noted that the AVMs based on (2.1) and (3.27) are
different as these models will have different equivalent state space matrices.

3.4 Construction and Implementation of the Generalized PAVM

To make detailed models more representative of hardware, the parasitics and non-
idealities are included as part of model. Here, for the fourth and full-order Flyback converter,
the switch and capacitor parasitics, the non-ideal transformer, and snubbers are added to the
converter circuit. ASMG [47] and PLECS are two software tools that could be used for
building the detailed model of the Flyback converter. For implementation of the proposed
AVM, the system matrices A k , B k , C k , and D k relating to different topologies of the
Flyback converter are extracted from detailed model. This could be done readily using
software facilities such as state-space functions of PLECS.
The detailed model of the converter is ran in a wide range of operating conditions to
numerically calculate the parametric functions. By changing duty cycle and load resistor of
the converter, the model is run under different operating conditions until the circuit reaches
steady state. In steady state, the dynamic average value of state variables is obtained as
t +Ts
1
x=
Ts xdt.
t
(3.28)

The duty ratio constraint d 2 is calculated on the basis of the period that the diode is
conducting. The averaged state variables and length of switching subintervals are calculated
and saved for construction of the appropriate correction terms.

The correction terms are then calculated using the following procedure. When the
model is in steady state, from (3.27) we have
k =3 k =3
0 = M 1 d k A k M x C SSA + M 1 d k B k u, (3.29)
k =1 k =1
Multiplying both sides of (3.29) by M gives
k =3 k =3
0 = d k A k M x C SSA + d k B k u. (3.30)
k =1 k =1

47
Matrix M and its calculation are also described in [22]. For consistency with the prior work
and for computational convenience, a diagonal correction matrix, namely M is assumed
here. This is done by solving (3.30) for M x and defining vector p as follows
1
k =3 k =3
p = M x = d k A k d k B k u . (3.31)
k =1 k =1
Thereafter, the entries of the diagonal of correction matrix M are calculated as following:
p( j )
M ( j, j ) = . (3.32)
x( j )
It can be seen from (3.31) that computing vector p requires matrix inversion. To
verify that the procedure is not ill-conditioned, it is possible to calculate the condition
k =3
number of the matrix d A
k =1
k k as has been done in [46]. The result is plotted in Figure 3.7.

As illustrated in Figure 3.7, the condition number of this matrix increases for some operating
conditions but remains sufficiently low to cause a numerical problem for the conventional
double-precision arithmetic in Matlab.
To show that the resulting errors will be sufficiently small, a residual equation is
defined as
k =3 k =3
r = d k A k p + d k B k u, (3.33)
k =1 k =1
wherein p is an approximate solution obtained by numerical methods. Due to the round-off

errors, r is always nonzero. If p is an exact solution, then

k =3 k =3
d k A k p = d k B k u, (3.34)
k =1 k =1
and
1
k =3
p p = d k A k r . (3.35)
k =1
Choosing a vector norm, an upper bound can be obtained for the absolute error in p .
1 1
k =3 k =3
p p = d k A k r d k A k r . (3.36)
k =1 k =1

48
It is understood from (3.34) that

k =3 k =3
d k A k p d k B k u , (3.37)
k =1 k =1
In other words,

k =3
dk Ak
1 k =1
. (3.38)
=
p k 3

d k B k u
k =1
Combining (3.36) and (3.38), gives a bound for the relative error in p as

k =3
1 dk Ak
p p k =3 k =1
dk Ak r . (3.39)
k =3
p k =1
d k B k u
k =1
As it is seen in (3.39), part of the inequality on right hand side is
1
k =3 k =3
= dk Ak dk Ak . (3.40)
k =1 k =1

which is the condition number plotted in Figure 3.7.

To see how large the relative error could be, (3.39) is calculated for an example
operating point defined by Rload = 2900 and d1 = 0.8 . This operating point is close the worst
case, and the calculated maximum relative error for this case is 1.64e-5. Such errors are
considered to be sufficiently small and acceptably for the purpose of this thesis.
7
x 10
15
condition number

10

0
3000
2000 1
0.8
Rload, Ohm 1000 0.6
0.4 d1
0 0.2
Figure 3.7 Inverted matrix condition number.

49
 The correction functions for the fourth-order Flyback converter (without the output
snubber) have also been calculated using the same general procedure. The functions
m1 , m2 , m3 and m4 corresponding to the voltage of output capacitor, the voltage of input
(switch) snubber capacitor, the current of primary side leakage inductor, and current of
secondary side leakage inductor, respectively, are plotted in Figure 3.8 through Figure 3.11.

1.5
m1

0.5 1
3000
2000 0.5 d1
Rload, Ohm 1000 0 0
Figure 3.8 Correction coefficient m1 for voltage of output capacitor vC .

1.5
m2

1 1
0.5
3000 0.5 d1
2500
2000
1500
Rload, Ohm 1000 0
500

Figure 3.9 Correction coefficient m2 for voltage of primary snubber capacitor vCss .

50
 10

3
m
0
0
1000
Rload, Ohm 2000
0.4 0.2
3000 0.8 0.6
1 d1

Figure 3.10 Correction coefficient m3 for primary side leakage inductor current iLpt .

10
4

5
m

0
3000
2000 1
Rload, Ohm 1000 0.8
0.6 d
0 0.4 1
0.2
Figure 3.11 coefficient m4 for secondary side leakage inductor current iLst .

The calculated duty ratio constraint for full-order Flyback converter is plotted in
Figure 3.12 with respect to d1 and Rload . The diagonal entries of M are calculated
according (3.32) using the element-wise operations. The resulting correction functions
m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 and m5 corresponding to the voltage of output capacitor, the voltage of first
(transistor) capacitor snubber, the voltage of second (diode) capacitor snubber, the current of
primary side leakage inductor, and the current of secondary side leakage inductor,
respectively. These numerically calculated parametric functions are plotted in Figure 3.12
through Figure 3.13.

51
 0.8

0.6
2
0.4
d

0.2
0
0 0.5 d
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 1 1
3000
Rload, Ohm
Figure 3.12 Calculated function of duty-ratio constraint d2.

0
1

0.02
m

0.04
3000
2000 1
0.8
R, Ohm 1000 0.6
0.4 d1
0 0.2

Figure 3.13 Correction coefficient m1 for voltage of output capacitor vC .

1.5
2

1
m

0.5
3000
2000 1
0.8
Rload, Ohm 1000 0.6
0.4 d1
0 0.2

Figure 3.14 Correction coefficient m2 for voltage of primary snubber capacitor vCss .

52
 0
m3
0.02

0.04
3000
2000 1
0.8
Rload, Ohm 1000 0.6
0.4 d1
0 0.2

Figure 3.15 Correction coefficient m3 for voltage of output snubber capacitor vCds .

10
m4

0
3000
2000 1
0.8
Rload, Ohm 1000 0.6
0.4 d
0 0.2 1

Figure 3.16 Correction coefficient m4 for primary side leakage inductor current iLpt .

0
m5

0.02

0.04
3000
2000 1
0.8
Rload, Ohm 1000 0.6
0.4 d1
0 0.2

Figure 3.17 Correction coefficient m5 for secondary side leakage inductor current iLst .

53
 The numerically calculated parametric functions, including correction terms and duty
ratio constraint, are stored in lookup tables and is used in the AVM in the form of non-linear
functions, wherein interpolation/extrapolation is automatically implemented. The output of
these functions depend on the input voltage v g , the duty cycle d1 , and the average value of

state variables in vector x . Instead of using complex, multi-input and multi-dimensional

lookup tables, it is preferred to define a dynamic impedance of the converter switching cell
and use it for specifying the converter operating condition. For the work presented in this
thesis, two dynamic impedances are defined as follows:
vC vCds
z diode = , (3.41)
iLst
vC
z mid = . (3.42)
iLpt

The impedance z diode defined in (3.41) combines three state variables (two of which are fast

state variables). This impedance is used as input argument for the m1 lookup table that
performs the output capacitor voltage correction. All other correction functions are
implemented using the input argument impedance z mid defined in (3.41)-(3.42). Another
advantage of using the dynamic impedances - (3.42) is that they define the converter
operating point independently of the input voltage. For example, when the input voltage is
increased while d1 and Rload are kept constant, all the state variables will increase
proportionally and the value of dynamic impedance that specifies the operating point of the
converter will not change.
Once the state-space matrices and parametric functions are available, the final
extended PAVM is implemented according to the block diagram shown in Figure 3.18. In
each time step, the state-variable-dependent matrix M (and its inverse) containing
correction coefficients is calculated and appropriately multiplied with the previously
extracted system matrices A k , B k , C k , and D k . The resulting state space model is nonlinear
but continuous (has no switching), and can be readily implemented in any state-variable-
based simulation environment.

54
 x

-1 -1
u x = M AT M x + M BT u

zdiode (d1 , x ) M y = CT x + DT u y
z M (d1 , zdiode , zmid )

zmid (d1 , x )
d2 (d1 , zdiode , zmid )

d1 d2 , d 3 3 3
d3=1- d1 - d2
AT = (
k=1
d k Ak ), BT = (
k=1
)
d k Bk

3 3

Ak , Bk , Ck , Dk
CT = (
k=1
d k Ck ), DT = (
k=1
dk D k )
Figure 3.18 Block diagram depicting implementation of proposed extended PAVM.

3.5 Eigenvalue Analysis

Based on (3.27), it may appear that the new formulation uses M1AT M , which is

M1AT M is a similarity transformation [46] that does not change the eigenvalues of the

k =3
matrix A T = d k A k , which is the same matrix used in conventional (uncorrected SSA)
k =1
in (2.1). To verify the effect of correction in (3.27), we assume a CCM operating point
defined by d1 = 0.381 and Rload = 717 . The resulting correction coefficients (the diagonal
entries of M) and the eigenvalues of various matrices are summarized in Table 3.1. As is
shown in Table 3.1, the matrix product AT M contains some eigenvalues with positive real
part (which is a result of negative entries present in M). Therefore, if the PAVM is formed
using conventional approach, the resulting model will also contain positive eigenvalues and
be unstable. At the same time, if the PAVM is formed using the proposed generalized
approach (3.27), the matrix product M1AT M as well as the final resulting PAVM will have
eigenvalues with negative real part. It is also important to point out that the eigenvalues of
M1AT M are different from those computed by numerical linearization of the corresponding
PAVM. This is due to the fact that the matrix M is state-variable-dependent, which affects
the models eigenvalues and makes that different from those of M1AT M and

k =3
AT = d k A k (which would obviously be incorrect due to lack of correction in DCM).
k =1
55
 Table 3.1 Eigenvalues of AVMs.

Elements of correction matrix M -0.01; 0.99; -0.01; 2.89; -0.01

Eigenvalues of A TM matrix (-8.15j1.03)e8; 4.53e5; 1.88e3; 6.3
Eigenvalues of PAVM -7.16e7; -1.36e7; 4.71e5; 14.86; 1.02e3
Eigenvalues of M 1 A T M matrix (-5.86j5.8)e7; -3.31e7; -4.29e2; -1.06e5
Eigenvalues of corrected PAVM -7.8e7; -2.63e7; -1.65e7; -7.54e4; -310.56

3.6 Model Validation with Respect to Hardware

For hardware validation, the prototype converter circuit whose parameters as
summarized Appendix C, is considered. The converter is assumed to operate in nominal
operating point when supplied from 20 Volts dc input, with 0.381 duty cycle, and a resistive
load of 717 Ohm on the output side. The voltages at various points of the converter circuit
were measured and recorded using a 500 MHz digital oscilloscope. The measured and
simulated results are shown in Figure 3.19, which includes the converter output voltage, the
transformer secondary side voltage, and the voltage across primary side snubber branch. As
can be seen in Figure 3.19, the waveforms from hardware are somewhat noisy and include
the switching spikes and high frequency ringing of the voltages. The simulated results appear
to be in very good agreement with the measurements, although some difference in the
measured and predicted spikes can be attributed to the absence of the diode the reverse
recovery current in the detailed simulation. The values of the input current, output voltage,
and the resulting converter efficiency are also compared in Table 3.2, which demonstrates
that the detailed model captures the necessary major sources of losses and predicts the
terminal characteristics of the actual experimental converter circuit with very good accuracy.
Therefore, the detailed model is assumed to be sufficiently accurate and it is used in the
following sections for evaluating performance of the subject AVMs.

56
Table 3.2 Hardware prototype and detailed model comparison in terms of input current, output voltage
and efficiency.
Input current Output voltage Efficiency
Hardware 0.432 -72.67 85.33%
Detailed Model 0.42 -72.63 87.52%

-72.4
Output voltage Hardware measurement
-72.5 Detailed model

-72.6
vout , V

-72.7

-72.8

-72.9
300 Transformer secondary side voltage

200
v Trans.s , V

100

-100
40
Switch snubber voltage
30

20
vSnub.p , V

10

-10
0 0.5 1 1.5
Time, s 5
x 10
Figure 3.19 Measured and detailed model waveforms for the considered operating point.

57
3.7 Precision Evaluation in Steady State
To evaluate precision of the new generalized PAVM, this model is compared against
the detailed model in DCM (d1 = 0.381, Rload = 2500) and in CCM

(d1 = 0.381, Rload = 717 ) operating points. The average-values of all state variables,
including the voltage of snubber capacitors, obtained from the corrected PAVM and the
detailed model is summarized in Table 3.3. As Table 3.3 demonstrates, the new PAVM is
capable of predicting average-value of circuit variables very accurately, with a very small
relative error.
Next, the precision of the new generalized PAVM in terms of predicting the converter
efficiency is considered. For consistency, the same DCM and CCM operating points are
considered here. The calculated results are summarized in Table 3.4. As can be observed in
Table 3.4, the new model works very well in both modes DCM and CCM. Comparing the
results in Table 3.4 corresponding to the 4th and full-order converter circuit, one can also
observe that the converter efficiency reduces when the output snubber is used (due to
additional energy dissipation).

58
 Table 3.3 Accuracy precision of the proposed PAVM in predicting steady state variables.
4th-order Flyback Full-order
Variable converter Flyback converter
DCM CCM DCM CCM
Correct Value -102 -70.87 -85.78 -72.63
Output capacitor voltage vC (V) Predicted Value -102.1 -70.87 -85.78 -72.66

Error 0.10% 0% 0% 0.04%

Correct Value 19.96 19.93 19.97 19.92

Input snubber capacitor voltage
Predicted Value 19.96 19.93 19.97 19.92
vCss (V)
Error 0% 0% 0% 0%

Correct Value 47.1 136.8

Output snubber capacitor
Predicted Value --- --- 47.1 137.2
voltage vCds (mV)
Error 0.08% 0.29%

Correct Value 220.6 370.8 167.4 420.1

Transformer primary side
Predicted Value 220.8 370.9 167.4 417.9
current iLpt (mA)
Error 0.09% 0.03% 0% 0.53%

Correct Value -40.8 -98.8 -34.31 -101.3

Transformer secondary side
Predicted Value -40.82 -98.8 -34.32 -101.3
current iLst (mA)
Error 0.05% 0% 0.03% 0%

Table 3.4 Accuracy precision of the proposed PAVM in predicting converter efficiency.
4th-order Flyback Full-order Flyback
Model converter converter
DCM CCM DCM CCM
Detailed model 94.31% 94.41% 87.88% 87.52%
Generalized/Corrected PAVM 94.31% 94.41% 87.89% 88.05%

3.8 Case Studies

The detailed model of full-order Flyback converter including all major parasitics is
depicted in Figure 1.2. The hardware prototype utilized for validating the detailed model, its
parameters and circuit diagram are shown in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.
First, in Section 3.6 we demonstrated that the results of the base line detailed model is in very

59
good agreement with the corresponding experimental measurements from the laboratory
converter prototype. In the following sections, the proposed PAVM is further evaluated in
time-domain transients as well as in frequency-domain.

3.8.1 Performance of Proposed PAVM in Time-Domain Transients

The new PAVM has been implemented according to the diagram shown in Figure
3.18 in Matlab/Simulink environment using toolboxes such as ASMG and PLECS. In order
to investigate the difference between the previously established PAVM and the
corrected/generalized PAVM, the fourth-order Flyback converter is considered first. The
converted is assumed to initially operate in steady state DCM under load Rload = 2500 and

duty cycle d1 = 0.381 . While the converter duty cycle is kept constant, another 2500
resistor is added in parallel to the load. The converter transient response as predicted by the
PAVMs is shown in Figure 3.20.
As it is seen in Figure 3.20, the predicted steady state values (before and after the
transient) are same for both models, but the transient is predicted somewhat differently with
the uncorrected PAVM showing a delayed response. This is because formulas that the AVMs
are based on ((2.1) for uncorrected PAVM and (3.27) for corrected PAVM) are equivalent
with (3.30) in steady state, and therefore both AVMs predict same averaged-values.
Next, the same study is performed using the full-order Flyback converter model. As
discussed in Section 3.5, the uncorrected PAVM is not able to operate due to positive
eigenvalues, and is therefore not used in this study. The simulations result obtained by the
generalized/corrected PAVM are shown in Figure 3.21. As it is observed in Figure 3.21, the
new PAVM very accurately predicts the steady state values as well as the entire transient
response of the system.

60
 -70

-80
Detailed
Corrected PAVM

v ,V
-90 PAVM

C
-100

-110
40

30
,V

20
Css
v

10

0
1.5

1
iLpt , A

0.5

-0.5
0.05
0
-0.05
,A

-0.1
Lst
i

-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35
Time, s
Figure 3.20 Transients of state variables of fourth-order Flyback converter as predicted by uncorrected
PAVM and the proposed corrected PAVM.

61
 -70
Detailed
Corrected PAVM
-75

vC , V
-80

-85

-90
40

30
vCss , V

20

10

0
150

100
,V

50
Cds

0
v

-50

-100
1.5

1
,A

0.5
Lpt
i

-0.5
0.05

-0.05
iLst , A

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
0.29 0.295 0.3 0.305 0.31 0.315 0.32 0.325 0.33
Time, s
Figure 3.21 Transients of state variables of full-order Flyback converter due to load change.
62
 Another time-domain study is considered using the full-order Flyback converter
model. In the study presented here, the converter undergoes an increase in the duty cycle
which causes a change in the operating mode. The converter is assumed to initially operate in
steady state under load Rload = 717 and duty cycle d1 = 0.5 . Then, at t = 0.3 s, the control
duty cycle is decreased from 0.5 to 0.2 over a period of 0.05s. The resulting transient
responses are shown in Figure 3.22. As it can be observed in Figure 3.22, the converter
initially operates in CCM, but after the transients and duty cycle change, the operating mode
changes to DCM. With the decrease in duty cycle, the transistor on-state becomes shorter in
each switching cycle, and the output voltage amplitude decreases as well. Therefore, the
primary side leakage inductor current (input current) has smaller oscillation amplitude, which
in turn results in decrease of the average value of the input current. In consequence, less
voltage is delivered to the load. This is verified by the output capacitor voltage in Figure
3.22.

63
 -20

-40
Detailed
-60

vC , V
Corrected PAVM
-80

-100

-120
60

40
vCss , V

20

-20
200

100
vCds , V

-100

-200
6

4
iLpt , A

-2
1

0.5
,A

0
Lst
i

-0.5

-1
0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4
Time, s
Figure 3.22 Circuit state variables transients due to intense increase of duty cycle.

64
3.8.2 Performance of Proposed PAVM in Frequency-Domain
In the following study, the converter is assumed to operate in DCM operating point
defined by d1 = 0.381 and Rload = 2500 . The control-to-output transfer function is
considered, and the frequency response is calculated by injecting a small amplitude
sinusoidal signals to the control duty cycle of detailed model and corrected PAVM. The
result of this control-to-output transfer function magnitude and phase are shown in Figure
3.23. As it can be seen in Figure 3.23, the proposed PAVM predicts the small-signal transfer
function with a good agreement with the detailed model. At higher frequencies, the results
become less accurate due to interaction of the injected sinusoidal wave with switching [9],
[49].

50 Detailed
Magnitude , dB

Corrected PAVM

-50

150

100
Phase , deg

50

-50 1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency, Hz
Figure 3.23 Control-to-output transfer function magnitude and phase in DCM as predicted by proposed
PAVM and detailed model.

65
Chapter 4 : Summary of Research and Future Work

4.1 Second-order Flyback Converter

This thesis presented three new average-value models (CA-AVM, SSA-AVM, and
PAVM) for second-order Flyback converter, which achieves Objective 1 and Objective 2.
The conventional state-space averaging method was applied to the same Flyback converter to
set the stage for the new models. A corrected state-space averaged model is proposed, where
the basic losses are included into the state matrices as well as the new expression for the duty
ratio constrain. Next, a new circuit-averaged model is proposed, where the equivalent
conduction loss resistance is modified to observe the energy conservation principle in both
DCM and CCM. Then, an improved numerical average-value model of second-order Flyback
converter with basic conduction losses and parasitics is presented. The presented numerical
SSA method is straightforward and does not have usual complexity of analytical methods.
All new average-value models have been demonstrated and compared with the detailed
simulation and alternative/existing state-of-the-art models in DCM and CCM. The proposed
AVMs are shown to be more accurate with respect to the detailed model in both time- and
frequency-domains.

4.2 Flyback Converter with Snubbers

In Chapter 3, which addresses Objective 3 of this thesis, the previously established
SSA approach is investigated and shown not able to result in an accurate AVM for full-order
Flyback converter with both input and output snubbers. Therefore, the SSA formulation is re-
derived assuming a more general correction of state variables and the state-space matrices
using one diagonal correction matrix. Based on the generalized corrected SSA formulation,
the new PAVM is constructed using similar numerical procedures and detailed simulations as
was used for the previously established PAVM approach. The proposed PAVM has also been
verified against the detailed model and the experimental converter prototype. The proposed
PAVM is easy to implement in many simulation programs such as Matlab/Simulink and
related toolboxes such as PLECS, ASMG, and SimPowerSystems. The new PAVM for the
Flyback converter is shown to be very accurate in large-signal transients covering both DCM

66
and CCM with transformer isolation, basic parasitics, and snubbers, which to the best of our
knowledge has not been achieved in the prior literature.

4.3 Future Work

It is envisioned that the extended/generalized PAVM methodology can also be
applied to other converters with more complicated topologies. In particular, the full-bridge
bidirectional DC/DC converter is another example of a converter that is very commonly used
in power supply applications, but for which there are only approximate/idealized average
models available in the literature due to the overwhelming complications that arise in
conventional analytical approaches when considering parasitics such as conduction losses
and transformer leakage inductances. Converters with resonant switching may also be very
interesting to consider for the PAVM since the operation of resonant circuits may have a
similar effect of the modeling as the snubber circuits. Also, more research could be
conducted to develop the proposed methodology for the multiple-input multiple-output
converters. Another very hot research direction is to apply the PAVM to the multi-level and
modular converters that are becoming particularly attractive for high power utility and
HVDC applications. Presently, some of these topics are under investigation other graduate
students of the UBCs Electrical Power and Energy Systems research group.

67
Bibliography
[1] P. Chrin and C. Bunlaksananusorn, Large-Signal Average Modeling and Simulation
of DC-DC Converters with SIMULINK, Power Conversion Conference, Nagoya,
April 2007, pp. 2732.
[2] M. Plesnik, Use of the State-Space Averaging Technique in Fast Steady-State
Simulation Algorithms for Switching Power Converters, Canadian Conference on
Electrical and Computer Engineering(CCECE), May 2006, pp. 2224-2227.
[3] D. Maksimovic, A.M. Stankovic, V.J. Thottuvelil, and G.C. Verghese, Modeling and
simulation of power electronic converters, Proceedings of the IEEE, Jun 2001, vol.
89, no. 6, pp. 898912.
[4] G. Nirgude, R. Tirumala, and N. Mohan, A new, large-signal average model for
single-switch DC-DC converters operating in both CCM and DCM, Power
Electronics Specialists Conference (PESC), 2001, vol. 3, pp. 1736-1741.
[5] A. Davoudi, J. Jatskevich, and P.L. Chapman, Averaged modelling of switched-
inductor cells considering conduction losses in discontinuous mode, IET, May 2007,
vol. 1, no.3, pp. 402-406.
[6] R. D. Middlebrook and S. Cuk, A General Unified Approach to Modelling Switching
Converter Power Stage, IEEE PESC Record, 1976, pp. 18-34.
[7] R. Tymerski and V. Vorperian, Generation, Classification and Analysis of Switched-
Mode DC-to-DC Converters by the Use of Converter Cells, Telecommunications
Energy Conference (INTELEC), Oct. 1986, pp. 181-195.
[8] J. Chen and K. D. T. Ngo, Alternate forms of the PWM switch model in discontinuous
conduction mode, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 2001, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 754-
758.
[9] J. Sun, D. M. Mitchell, M. F. Greuel, P. T. Krein, and R.M. Bass, Averaged modeling
of PWM converters operating in discontinuous conduction mode, IEEE Trans. On
Power Electronics, Jul 2001, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 482-492.
[10] W. M. Moussa and J. E. Morris, Comparison between state-space averaging and
PWM switch for switch mode power supply analysis, Proceedings of the IEEE
Southern Tier Technical Conference, Apr. 1990, pp. 15-21.

68
[11] K. Rustom, W. Qiu, C. lannello, and I. Batarseh, Unified Flyback switching-cell
model including the leakage inductance effects for SPICE simulation, Power
Electronics Specialist Conference (PESC), June 2003, vol. 3, pp. 1215-1219.
[12] C. T. Rim, G. B. Joung, and G. H. Cho, Practical switch based state-space modeling
of DC-DC converters with all parasitics, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
Oct 1991, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 611-617.
[13] A. Davoudi, and J. Jatskevich, State-space averaging of switched-inductor-cell for
PWM dc-dc converters considering conduction losses in both operational modes,
IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), May 2006, pp. 830.
[14] R. Ericson, D. Maksimovic, Fundamentals of Power Electronics, 2nd ed., Kluwer
Academic Publisher, Norwell, 2001, pp. 161-165.
[15] A. Reatti, L. Pellegrini, and M. K. Kazimierczuk, Impact of boost converter
parameters on open-loop dynamic performance for DCM, ISCAS, 2002, vol. 5, pp.
513-516.
[16] L.R. Pujara, M. K. Kazimierczuk, and A. N. I. Shaheen, Robust stability of PWM
buck DC-DC converter, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference, Sep 1996,
pp. 632-637.
[17] G. Zhu, S. Luo, C. Iannello, and I. Batarseh, Modeling of conduction losses in PWM
converters operating in discontinuous conduction mode, Proceedings of ISCAS,
Geneva, 2000, vol. 3, pp. 511-514.
[18] A. Reatti and M. K. Kazimierczuk, Small-signal model of PWM converters for
discontinuous conduction mode and its application for boost converter, IEEE Trans.
On Circuits Syst. I, Jan. 2003, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 6573.
[19] D. Czarkowski and M. K. Kazimierczuk, Energy-conservation approach to modeling
PWM dc-dc converters, IEEE Trans. On Aerospace Electron. Syst., 1993, vol. 29, no.
3, pp. 1059-1063.
[20] D. Maksimovic and S. Cuk, A unified analysis of PWM converters in discontinuous
modes, IEEE Transactions On Power Electronics, Jul. 1991, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 476-
490.

69
[21] D. Maksimovic, Computer-aided small-signal analysis based on impulse response of
DC/DC switching power converters, IEEE Transactions On Power Electronics, Nov.
2000 , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1183-1191.
[22] A. Davoudi, J. Jatskevich, and T. De Rybel, Numerical state-space average-value
modeling of PWM DC-DC converters operating in DCM and CCM, IEEE
Transactions On Power Electronics, July 2006, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1003-1012.
[23] A. Davoudi, J. Jatskevich, and P. L. Chapman, Numerical Dynamic Characterization
of Peak Current-Mode-Controlled DCDC Converters, IEEE Transactions On
Circuits and Systems II, Dec. 2009, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 906-910.
[24] A. Davoudi and J. Jatskevich, Realization of parasitics in state-space average-value
modeling of PWM DC-DC converters, IEEE Transactions On Power Electronics,
July 2006, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1142-1147.
[25] D. Skendzic, Two transistor Flyback converter design for EMI control, International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Aug. 1990, pp. 130-133.
[26] K. Ma and Y. Lee, An integrated Flyback converter for DC uninterruptible power
supply, IEEE Transactions On Power Electronics, Mar. 1996, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 318-
327.
[27] S. Amini Akbarabadi, H. Atighechi, and J. Jatskevich, Circuit-Averaged and State-
Space-Averaged-Value Modeling of Second-Order Flyback Converter in CCM and
DCM Including Conduction Losses, International Conference On Energy and
Electrical Drives (POWERENG), May 2013, pp. 995-1000.
[28] M. T. Zhang, M. M. Jovanovic, and F. C. Y. Lee, Design considerations and
performance evaluations of synchronous rectification in Flyback converters, IEEE
Transactions On Power Electronics, May 1998, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 538-546.
[29] N. Golbon, F. Ghodousipour, and G. Moschopoulos A DC-DC converter with stacked
flyback converters, Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), Sept. 2013,
pp. 4894-4899.
[30] S. Dutta, D. Maiti, A. K. Sil, and S. K. Biswas A Soft-Switched Flyback converter
with recovery of stored energy in leakage inductance, India International Conference
on Power Electronics (IICPE), Dec. 2012, pp. 1-5.

70
[31] G. Huang, T. Liang, and K. Chen, Losses analysis and low standby losses quasi-
resonant flyback converter design, IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and
Systems (ISCAS), May 2012, pp. 217-220.
[32] R. T. H. Li and H. S. Chung, A passive lossless snubber cell with minimum stress and
wide soft-switching range, Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition(ECCE), Sept.
2009, pp. 685-692.
[33] R. T. H. Li, H. S. Chung, A. K. T. Sung, Passive Lossless Snubber for Boost PFC
With Minimum Voltage and Current Stress, IEEE Transactions On Power
Electronics, March 2010, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 602-613.
[34] J. A. Cobos, J. Sebastian, J. Uceda, E. de la Cruz, and J. M. Gras, Study of the
applicability of self-driven synchronous rectification to resonant topologies, IEEE
Power Electron. Specialists Conf. Rec., 1992, pp. 933-940.
[35] D. J. Harper, D. R. Hyde, G. M. Fry, and J. A. Houldsworth, Controlled synchronous
rectifier, High Freq. Power Conversion Conf. Proc., 1988, pp. 165-172.
[36] K. Harada, H. Sakamoto, Switched snubber for high frequency switching, IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conference(PESC), 1990, pp. 181-188.
[37] S. Amini Akbarabadi, M. Sucu, H. Atighechi, and J. Jatskevich, Numerical average
value modeling of second-order Flyback converter in both operational modes, IEEE
Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics (COMPEL), June 2013, pp.
1-6.
[38] N. Mohan, T. M. Undeland, and W. P. Robbins, Power Electronics, Third Edition,
John Wiley & Sons Publisher, 2003.
[39] K. Harada, T. Ninomiya, Optimum Design of RC Snubbers for Switching
Regulators, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, March 1979,
vol. AES-15, no. 2, pp. 209-218.
[40] N. Mohan, T. Undeland, and W. Robbins, Power Electronics: Converters,
Applications, and Design, Third Edition, John Wiley Publisher, 2003.
[41] E. Acha, V. Agelidis, O. Anaya-Lara, and T. Miller, Power Electronic Control in
Electrical Systems, Newnes, 2002.
[42] Piece-wise Linear Electrical Circuit Simulation for Simulink (PLECS), Plexim GmbH,
2009. [Online]. Available: www.plexim.com

71
[43] Simulink: Dynamic System Simulation for Matlab, Using Simulink, Version R2009b,
The MathWorks Inc., 2009.
[44] A. Davoudi, J. Jatskevich, and P. L. Chapman, Parametric Average-Value Modeling
of Multiple-Input Buck Converters, Canadian Conference on Electrical and
Computer Engineering( CCECE), April 2007, pp. 990-993.
[45] K. J. Astrom K. J. and T. H. Hagglund, New tuning methods for PID controllers,
Proceedings of the 3rd European Control Conference, 1995.
[46] U. M. Ascher and C. Greif, A first course in numerical methods,
SIAM, Philadelphia, 2011.
[47] Automated State Model Generator (ASMG), PC Krause and Associates Inc., 2002.
[Online]. Available: www.pcka.com.
[48] W. Gautchi, Numerical Analysis: An Introduction, Birkhauser Publisher, Boston, 1997.
[49] J. Sun, D. M. Mitchell, and D. E. Jenkins Delay effects in averaged modeling of PWM
converters, Power Electronics Specialists Conference(PESC), 1999, vol. 2, pp. 1210-
1215.
[50] M. Sucu, Parametric Average Value Modeling of Flyback Converters in CCM and
DCM Including Parasitics and Snubbers, M.Sc. Thesis, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2011.

72
Appendices

Appendix A. Second-order Flyback Converter State-space Matrices

Req
0 1
L 0
A1 = m , B1 = Lm
0 1
0 0
C ( Rload + Rc )

Rload Rc Rload
n2 L (R + R ) 1
nLm ( Rload + Rc ) 0
A2 = m c
, B2 = nLm
R load 1
n C ( Rload + Rc ) C ( Rload + Rc ) 0 0

0 0 0 0
A 3 = 0 1 , B3 =
C ( Rload + Rc ) 0 0

73
Appendix B. Converters Circuit Parameters

B.1 Second-order Flyback Converter Parameters with Basic Parasitics

v g = 20V
Mosfet : 3.8 A, 55V , N chanel , International Re ctifier IRRL 2705
Rsw = 0.04
f s = 250kHz
d1 = 0.381
Transformer : ICE Components ICA 0635

R pt = Rst = 210m
Lm = 27 H
n = 1/ 6
Diode :1A, 400V , ultra fast re cov ery diode, Central Semiconductor CorpCMR1U 04
v fd = 1.25V
C = 22 F ,100V , Alu min um electrolytic capacitor , Sanyo100 MV 22 AX
Rc = 90m

B.2 Full-order Flyback Converter Parameters with all Parasitics and Snubbers

vg = 20V
Mosfet : 3.8 A, 55V , N chanel , International Re ctifier IRRL 2705
Rsw = 0.04
f s = 250kHz
d1 = 0.381
Css = 470 pF , Rss = 10
Transformer : ICE Components ICA 0635

R pt = Rst = 210m
Lm = 27 H , L p = 0.2 H , Ls = 0.8H
n = 1/ 6
Diode :1A, 400V , ultra fast re cov ery diode, Central Semiconductor CorpCMR1U 04
v fd = 1.25V
Cds = 100 pF , Rds = 200
C = 22 F ,100V , Alu min um electrolytic capacitor , Sanyo100 MV 22 AX
Rc = 90m

74
Appendix C. Hardware Flyback Converter Prototype Circuit Diagram

75