Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters

Autores
Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel; Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian; Uicich, Gustavo Cesar
Año de publicación
2016
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Power converters operating in boundary conduction mode (BCM) can benefit from an efficiency increase compared to continuous conduction mode (CCM) based on the soft-switching transitions at turn-on and/or turn-off. However, for a given average inductor current, the RMS current in BCM converters becomes larger than in CCM converters, leading to an increase in conduction losses. Interleaving smaller BCM power converters overcome this drawback by reducing the total ripple current amplitude at the expense of an increase in complexity and in magnetic parts count. Nevertheless, as the magnetic devices are among the largest components in power converters, it is convenient to find the design conditions under which BCM or CCM could yield the smaller net volume. This paper proposes a method to estimate the volume ratio for magnetic parts, between single-phase CCM and multiple interleaved BCM power converters as a function of the number of phases, inductor loss, and switching frequency. The results obtained can be applied to boost, forward, and flyback dc-to-dc topologies.
Fil: Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Uicich, Gustavo Cesar. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; Argentina
Materia
Boundary Conduction Mode (Bcm)
Continuous Conduction Mode (Ccm)
Inductor Design
Interleaved Power Converters
Photovoltaic (Pv) Converters
Power Factor Correction (Pfc)
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62487
Acceder
id CONICETDig_392ed163891829b293ed68d9d11c5106
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62487
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power ConvertersAntoszczuk, Pablo DanielGarcia Retegui, Rogelio AdrianUicich, Gustavo CesarBoundary Conduction Mode (Bcm)Continuous Conduction Mode (Ccm)Inductor DesignInterleaved Power ConvertersPhotovoltaic (Pv) ConvertersPower Factor Correction (Pfc)https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.2https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2Power converters operating in boundary conduction mode (BCM) can benefit from an efficiency increase compared to continuous conduction mode (CCM) based on the soft-switching transitions at turn-on and/or turn-off. However, for a given average inductor current, the RMS current in BCM converters becomes larger than in CCM converters, leading to an increase in conduction losses. Interleaving smaller BCM power converters overcome this drawback by reducing the total ripple current amplitude at the expense of an increase in complexity and in magnetic parts count. Nevertheless, as the magnetic devices are among the largest components in power converters, it is convenient to find the design conditions under which BCM or CCM could yield the smaller net volume. This paper proposes a method to estimate the volume ratio for magnetic parts, between single-phase CCM and multiple interleaved BCM power converters as a function of the number of phases, inductor loss, and switching frequency. The results obtained can be applied to boost, forward, and flyback dc-to-dc topologies.Fil: Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Uicich, Gustavo Cesar. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; ArgentinaInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers2016-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/62487Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel; Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian; Uicich, Gustavo Cesar; Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics; 31; 12; 12-2016; 8037-80410885-8993CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1109/TPEL.2016.2558469info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460101/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:43:18Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62487instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:43:19.212CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters
title Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters
spellingShingle Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters
Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel
Boundary Conduction Mode (Bcm)
Continuous Conduction Mode (Ccm)
Inductor Design
Interleaved Power Converters
Photovoltaic (Pv) Converters
Power Factor Correction (Pfc)
title_short Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters
title_full Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters
title_fullStr Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters
title_full_unstemmed Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters
title_sort Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel
Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian
Uicich, Gustavo Cesar
author Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel
author_facet Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel
Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian
Uicich, Gustavo Cesar
author_role author
author2 Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian
Uicich, Gustavo Cesar
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Boundary Conduction Mode (Bcm)
Continuous Conduction Mode (Ccm)
Inductor Design
Interleaved Power Converters
Photovoltaic (Pv) Converters
Power Factor Correction (Pfc)
topic Boundary Conduction Mode (Bcm)
Continuous Conduction Mode (Ccm)
Inductor Design
Interleaved Power Converters
Photovoltaic (Pv) Converters
Power Factor Correction (Pfc)
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2.2
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/2
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Power converters operating in boundary conduction mode (BCM) can benefit from an efficiency increase compared to continuous conduction mode (CCM) based on the soft-switching transitions at turn-on and/or turn-off. However, for a given average inductor current, the RMS current in BCM converters becomes larger than in CCM converters, leading to an increase in conduction losses. Interleaving smaller BCM power converters overcome this drawback by reducing the total ripple current amplitude at the expense of an increase in complexity and in magnetic parts count. Nevertheless, as the magnetic devices are among the largest components in power converters, it is convenient to find the design conditions under which BCM or CCM could yield the smaller net volume. This paper proposes a method to estimate the volume ratio for magnetic parts, between single-phase CCM and multiple interleaved BCM power converters as a function of the number of phases, inductor loss, and switching frequency. The results obtained can be applied to boost, forward, and flyback dc-to-dc topologies.
Fil: Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Uicich, Gustavo Cesar. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Electrónica. Laboratorio de Instrumentación y Control; Argentina
description Power converters operating in boundary conduction mode (BCM) can benefit from an efficiency increase compared to continuous conduction mode (CCM) based on the soft-switching transitions at turn-on and/or turn-off. However, for a given average inductor current, the RMS current in BCM converters becomes larger than in CCM converters, leading to an increase in conduction losses. Interleaving smaller BCM power converters overcome this drawback by reducing the total ripple current amplitude at the expense of an increase in complexity and in magnetic parts count. Nevertheless, as the magnetic devices are among the largest components in power converters, it is convenient to find the design conditions under which BCM or CCM could yield the smaller net volume. This paper proposes a method to estimate the volume ratio for magnetic parts, between single-phase CCM and multiple interleaved BCM power converters as a function of the number of phases, inductor loss, and switching frequency. The results obtained can be applied to boost, forward, and flyback dc-to-dc topologies.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62487
Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel; Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian; Uicich, Gustavo Cesar; Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics; 31; 12; 12-2016; 8037-8041
0885-8993
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62487
identifier_str_mv Antoszczuk, Pablo Daniel; Garcia Retegui, Rogelio Adrian; Uicich, Gustavo Cesar; Interleaved Boundary Conduction Mode Versus Continous Conduction Mode Magnetic Volume Comparison in Power Converters; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics; 31; 12; 12-2016; 8037-8041
0885-8993
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1109/TPEL.2016.2558469
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460101/
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613363691159552
score 13.070432

Publicaciones similares