Optimized Digital Controllers for Switching-Mode DC-DC Step-Down Converter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a nonlinear least squares optimization method is employed to optimize the performance of pole-zero-cancellation (PZC)-based digital controllers applied to a switching converter. An extensively used step-down converter operating at 1000 kHz is considered as a plant. In the PZC technique, the adverse effect of the (unwanted) poles of the buck converter power stage is diminished by the complex or real zeros of the compensator. Various combinations of the placement of the compensator zeros and poles can be considered. The compensator zeros and poles are nominally/roughly placed while attempting to cancel the converter poles. Although PZC techniques exhibit satisfactory performance to some extent, there is still room for improvement of the controller performance by readjusting its poles and zeros. The (nominal) digital controller coefficients thus obtained through PZC techniques are retuned intelligently through a nonlinear least squares (NLS) method using the Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm to ameliorate the static and dynamic performance while minimizing the sum of squares of the error in a quicker way. Effects of nonlinear components such as delay, ADC/DAC quantization error, and so forth contained in the digital control loop on performance and loop stability are also investigated. In order to validate the effectiveness of the optimized PZC techniques and show their supremacy over the traditional PZC techniques and the ones optimized by genetic algorithms (GAs), simulation results based on a MATLAB/Simulink environment are provided. For experimental validation, rapid hardware-in-the-loop (HiL) implementation of the compensated buck converter system is also performed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".