Search

A two-phase buck–boost converter utilizing dual interleaving is presented in this article. The dual interleaving consists of an interphase transformer (IPT) that doubles the ripple frequency together with two conventional buck–boost switching arms, mitigating the inductor ripple current and aiding to increase the power density of the converter. A description of the design and selection of the power devices is presented for a 32-kW, 75-kHz dual interleaved SiC prototype with an IPT, such that a power density of 7.4 kW/kg is achieved. The operation of the circuit is verified experimentally using a prototype with 315–385 V supply range and 350-V output voltage, achieving 97.1% peak efficiency at 32 kW. The experiments reveal that the interleaved coupled currents are equalized without an active balancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the averaged small-signal model of the dual-interleaved buck converter is extended to include the phase interaction effects that arise from the interleaved sampling of the phase currents. Sampler decomposition techniques are used to extend the averaged model, revealing a slow-scale instability that can place significant restrictions on the choice of controller parameters. The model is confirmed by simulations and measurements using a 60-kW dual-interleaved prototype with an interphase transformer; however, the analysis is equally applicable to interleaved converters without magnetic coupling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three pulse-width-modulation (PWM) digital control approaches are evaluated to provide the current sharing between phases in high-power dual-interleaved DC–DC converters. The implementation of a digital peak current, multi-sample averaged current and an enhanced single-sample averaged current control in a TMS320F28377D is described. A summary of stability requirements is provided for designing the controllers and experimental results from a 60 kW, 75 kHz silicon carbide DC–DC converter are used to evaluate the steady-state and dynamic performance of the three control methods. Overall the best performance in terms of tracking and speed of response was achieved by the enhanced single-sample method. The multisampled technique provided the highest tracking accuracy, but at the expense of the slowest dynamic response. The fastest dynamic response was achieved by the digital peak current control, but this method is limited by poor noise immunity and instability for duty ratios in the region of 0.5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]