IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO.

7, JULY 2012

3277

Common-Duty-Ratio Control of Input-Parallel Output-Parallel (IPOP) Connected DCDC Converter Modules With Automatic Sharing of Currents
Jianjiang Shi, Lingbing Zhou, and Xiangning He, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractInput-parallel output-parallel (IPOP) connected converter systems allow the use of low-power converter modules for high-power applications, with interleaving control scheme resulting in smaller lter size, better dynamic performance, and higher power density. In this paper, a new IPOP converter system is proposed, which consists of multiple dual-active half-bridge (DAHB) dcdc converter modules. Moreover, by applying a common-dutyratio control scheme, without a dedicated current-sharing controller, the automatic sharing of input currents or load currents is achieved in the IPOP converter even in the presence of substantial differences of 10% in various module parameters. The currentsharing performance of the proposed control method is analyzed using both a small-signal model and a steady-state dc model of the IPOP system. It is concluded that the equal sharing of currents among modules can be achieved by reducing the mismatches in various module parameters, which is achievable in practice. The current-sharing performance of the IPOP converter is also veried by Saber simulation and a 400-W experimental prototype consisting of two DAHB modules. The common-duty-ratio control method can be extended to any IPOP system that consists of three or more converter modules, including traditional dual-active bridge dcdc converters, which have a characteristic of current source. Index TermsAutomatic sharing of currents, common-dutyratio control, dcdc converter, dual-active half-bridge (DAHB), input-parallel output-parallel (IPOP) connection, mismatches in various converter parameters.

I. INTRODUCTION

ONNECTING modular dcdc converters in parallel at the input and output terminals is an efcient and reliable method to increase the power ratings of converters [1][3]. Input-parallel output-parallel (IPOP) connected converter systems offer many benets, such as power losses and thermal stresses of the power switches and the magnetic components are distributed in individual modules. The use of low-power faster semiconductor switches in individual modules also allows the use of higher switching frequency. Interleaving technique can be viewed as a variation of the paralleling technique, which consists of a phase shifting of the

Manuscript received July 22, 2011; revised October 26, 2011; accepted December 11, 2011. Date of current version April 3, 2012. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Award 50977083 and in part by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Award Y1090026. Recommended for publication by Associate Editor D. Perreault. The authors are with the College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China (e-mail: jianjiang@zju.edu.cn; zlbsky@ zju.edu.cn; hxn@zju.edu.cn). Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2180541

control signals of several modules operating in parallel at the same switching frequency. With the interleaving technique, the aggregated input and output current waveforms exhibit lower ripple amplitude and smaller harmonics content than in synchronous or stochastic operation modes. The resulting cancellation of low-frequency harmonics allows the reduction of size and losses of the input and/or output lters, the reduction of the switching and conduction losses as well as a signicant decrease of electromagnetic interference levels. The parallel connection could be used to improve the performances, such as dynamic performances, reliability, power density, and fault tolerance [2][6]. The use of IPOP converter systems could be a proper approach for high-power applications, with individual converter modules operating perfectly. However, the mismatches in various module parameters, such as the mismatches in duty ratios, will introduce power imbalance problems in the individual modules, which will cause inductor saturation, uneven thermal stresses, degradation of performances, and even failure of some modules [7]. Hence, the challenge with IPOP systems is to ensure that each module shares the input- or load-current evenly in the presence of substantial differences in various module parameters. The current-sharing techniques for IPOP converters have been well studied [7][13]; among various current-sharing schemes, the passive droop method and active current-sharing method are the most widely used techniques [12][16]. Compared with the droop method, the active current-sharing technique can achieve a near-perfect current distribution and better output-voltage regulation [8]. The active current-sharing schemes are usually implemented with additional load-sharing circuitry based on output current sensing for each converter module; a systematic classication of the current-sharing schemes for IPOP systems was given in [7], [8], [13], and [17]. As a result, the active current-sharing control schemes lead to increased complexity of the associated control and decreased reliability of the overall system. Zhang et al. [18] presented the concept of a common-dutyratio control scheme for an IPOP converter, which consists of two forward converters employing a common LC output lter. In the proposed control scheme, the same duty ratio is applied to all the converter modules. The scheme does not require an additional input- or load-current sharing controller, but still ensures equal sharing of the input- and load-current among individual modules. But in [18], neither steady-state nor dynamic current-sharing performance was analyzed in the presence of the mismatches in various converter parameters, such as leakage inductors, transformer turn ratios, and duty ratios.

0885-8993/$31.00 2012 IEEE

3278

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

Giri et al. [19] formally presented a common-duty-ratio control scheme for an input-series output-parallel (ISOP) connected converter system consisting of two forward converter modules. This control scheme does not require a dedicated input-voltageor load-current sharing controller, but still ensures the sharing of input voltages or load currents. It relies on the inherent selfcorrecting characteristic of the ISOP connection when the duty ratios of all the converter modules are the same [19]. Wang et al. [20] presented an interleaved ybackforward boost converter, in which the switched capacitors are used to balance the currents of the interleaved two modules without an additional current-sharing controller. Without using a current sensor, Qahouq et al. [21] presented a sensorless current-sharing method for an IPOP converter consisting of several buck converter modules, which ensures current sharing. But the sensorless solution generally requires computation-intensive estimation algorithm that can be sensitive to parameter variation, and thereby, affects current-sharing performance. Kim et al. [22] presented inductor current measurements using only a single dc-link current sensor in an interleaved dcdc converter. The technique is appealing for the interleaved dcdc converter because it minimizes the number of current sensors, thus reducing sensor cost, weight, and volume. But it results in limits on the minimum and maximum duty-ratio values that reduce the output voltage range. In this paper, a common-duty-ratio control scheme is presented for a new IPOP converter system, which consists of two dual-active half-bridge (DAHB) converters as the constituent modules. By using a small-signal model and a steady-state dc model of the IPOP system, the automatic current-sharing mechanism is realized even in the presence of mismatches in various module parameters. Furthermore, the characteristics of steady state and dynamic current sharing are analyzed in detail, illustrating that unstable run-away mode is eliminated. Finally, the performance of the control scheme for the IPOP system is veried by Saber simulations through its large-signal model, and experimentally validated on a 400-W prototype consisting of two DAHB converter modules. Additionally, it should be noted that the common-duty-ratio control method does not result in perfectly equal sharing of input current or load current, and the current-sharing accuracy is different to the extent that the parameters in the individual modules are different. However, the generally equal sharing of input current or load current among converter modules can be achieved even in the presence of substantial differences of 10% in various module parameters. Also, it should be noted that the control scheme can be extended to IPOP systems with multiple (three or more) DAHB modules and the constituent modules may include traditional dual-active-bridge dcdc converters, which have a characteristic of current source. II. ANALYSIS OF AN IPOP CONVERTER SYSTEM AND ITS MODELING A. Analysis of Operational Principle As shown in Fig. 1, the IPOP converter system consists of two DAHB converter modules, which feature simple cir-

Fig. 1.

Topology of the IPOP converter system.

cuit topology with no total device rating penalty, ease of softswitching implementation without additional devices, high efciency, simple control, and seamless control for bidirectional power ow [23]. In Fig. 1, Vin and Vo are the input voltage and the output voltage of the IPOP system, respectively and Cin and Co are the input and output lter capacitor, respectively. L1 and L2 are the input lter inductors of module 1 and module 2, respectively. Each module consists of two active half-bridge with each located on either side of the main transformers Ti (i = 1, 2); in each module, the input inductor and the primary active half-bridge constitute an open-loop operating boost circuit with constant duty ratio of 0.5. Llk1 and Llk2 represent the leakage inductance of the respective transformers T1 and T2 , including any external inductance to realize zero-voltage switching; ii1 and ii2 are the input current through the lter inductor L1 and L2 , respectively; and ip1 and ip2 are the primary current of T1 and T2 , respectively. Fig. 2 shows the switching time sequence and the key theoretical waveforms for the IPOP converter, where vgs (Sj k ) are the high-frequency square-wave for driving the switching devices Sj k (j = 1, 2; k = 1, 2, 3, 4), with each Sj k having the same switching frequency; the switching time sequence of module 2 is delayed by a half of the switching period (TS /2 or ), in comparison with that of module 1; the phase-shifted angle for module 1 is the same as that for module 2; D = / is the duty ratio corresponding to the phase-shifted angle . ip1 is the primary current of T1 in module 1, while ip2 corresponds to the primary current of T2 in module 2; and ii1 is the input current through the lter inductor L1 in module 1 and ii2 corresponds to that in module 2. Based on [23] and [24], the steady-state output current for the IPOP converter can be obtained as follows: Io = Io1 + Io2 Io1 = n1 ( ) Vin /(4 2 f Llk1 ) Io2 = n2 ( ) Vin /(4 2 f Llk2 ) (1)

where Io1 and Io2 are the output currents of module 1 and module 2, respectively; n1 and n2 are the turns ratio of transformers T1 and T2 , respectively; Llk1 and Llk2 are the leakage

SHI et al.: COMMON-DUTY-RATIO CONTROL OF INPUT-PARALLEL OUTPUT-PARALLEL (IPOP)

3279

Fig. 2.

Driving signals and key waveforms of the IPOP system.

Fig. 4. Models for the IPOP converter. (a) Small-signal model for the IPOP converter. (b) Simplied small-signal model for the IPOP converter. Fig. 3. Large-signal circuit model of the IPOP converter. TABLE I PARAMETERS OF THE SMALL-SIGNAL MODEL FOR AN IPOP CONVERTER

inductance of the respective transformers T1 andT2 ; and f is the switching frequency of the IPOP converter. B. Analysis of Modeling and Control Design for an IPOP Converter Based on the averaged switch modeling [23], [24], the largesignal (average mode) equivalent circuit of the IPOP converter system is shown in Fig. 3, where the damping resistances Rd1 and Rd2 indicate the effect of the boost circuits corresponding to module 1 and module 2, respectively; d1 = 1 / and d2 = 2 / are the duty ratios corresponding to module 1 and module 2, respectively; and C1p = C11 = C12 and C2p = C21 = C22 are the primary-side half-bridge capacitors corresponding to module 1 and module 2, respectively; and C1s = C13 = C14 and C2s = C23 = C24 correspond to the secondary-side halfbridge capacitors of module 1 and module 2, respectively. This average model is valid even for large-scale transmits such as step changes in input voltage or load current. The time-domain simulations presented later in Section V are obtained using the aforementioned model. In order to study dynamic current-sharing performances of the IPOP system, its small-signal average model is considered. Fig. 4(a) shows the small-signal average model of the IPOP converter system, derived from single converter module [23][25], and linearized around a specic operating condition (input voltage Vin , output voltage Vo , and steady-state duty ratio D = /). For Fig. 4(a), some parameters are shown in Table I, where = 2f. For the analysis of current sharing under conditions of small-signal perturbations in input voltage, the perturbations in the output voltage v o can be neglected, assuming a fast output-voltage controller. Hence, the smallsignal model of the IPOP converter system with a commonduty-ratio control is further simplied and shown in Fig. 4(b), where v 1a b (s) = v 1ab (s)/2 and v 2a b (s) = v 2ab (s)/2. With the common-duty-ratio control scheme, a block diagram of the control model for the IPOP converter is shown in Fig 5(a), where Gv (s) is the voltage compensator, Gio1 (s) = Vin n1 ( 2)/(2Llk1 ), Gio2 (s) = Vin n2 ( 2)/(2 Llk2 ), Zo (s) = Ro /{1+Ro s[Co + (C1s + C2s )/2]}, FM (s) = /(2F ) with F being the amplitude of output of the voltage compensator Gv (s). In order to simplify the design of control system, considering the parameter matches in individual converter modules, the block diagram of the control model for the IPOP converter is simplied and shown in Fig. 5(b).

3280

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

as turn ratio of transformer, phase-shifted angle, and leakage inductance.

B. Analysis of Steady-State Sharing of Input Current in the Presence of Mismatches in Various Converter Parameters Although parameters in various modules can be identical in ideal circuit model, it is not feasible in practice. This section will analyze the effects of mismatches in individual converter parameters on the steady-state sharing of the input current. To simplify the analysis, the ratio of differences between input currents in the two modules is dened as follows: Iin /Iin = (Ii1 Ii2 )/(Ii1 + Ii2 )
Fig. 5. Block diagram of the control model for the IPOP converter. (a) Block diagram of the control model for the IPOP converter. (b) Simplied block diagram of the control model for the IPOP converter.

= (I i1 /Ii2 1)/(Ii1 /Ii2 + 1).

(6)

From (4) and (5), the ratio of two modular input current can be derived as follows: Ii1 1 = Ii2 1 1 Llk1 n1 2 1 2 Llk2 n2 (7)

III. STEADY-STATE ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SHARING IN THE IPOP SYSTEM In steady-state operation of the IPOP converter shown in Fig. 1, the input- or output-current sharing in the two modules must be ensured even in the presence of substantial mismatches in various module parameters, such as duty ratios, transformer turn ratios, and leakage inductances of the transformers. Thus, the objective for each module to transmit power evenly can be realized by ensuring the equal sharing of the input current or output current. A. Steady-State Analysis of Current Sharing in the Presence of Matches in Various Module Parameters To simplify the analysis, the input current and output current of one DAHB converter module are rewritten as follows [23], [24]: Ii = n ( ) Vo /(4 2 f Llk ) Io = n ( ) Vin /(4 2 f Llk ) (2) (3)

Dening D2 = D = / and L2 = L = Llk /n for module 2, which are constant; dening D1 = D + D and L1 = L + L for module 1, which may be variable. Then, (7) can be simplied and shown as follows: (D + D)(1 D D)/(L + L) Ii1 . = Ii2 D(1 D)/L Again, dening the function as follows: f (D, L) = D(1 D)/L. (9) (8)

Since the conditions of D << D and L << L are available in practice, and based on (9), the following equations can be obtained: f f D + L (10) f (D + D, L + L) f (D, L) + D L f f D + L << f (D, L). (11) D L Again, from (9), the following equations can be obtained: f = (1 2D)/L (12) D f = D(1 D)/L2 . (13) L Substituting (8)(13) into (6), the following relation can be obtained: 1 Iin 1 2D (14) = Iin 2(1 D) 2 where = D/D, and = L/L. From (14), in the presence of matches in various module parameters, namely, D = 0 and L = 0, the results of Iin = 0 and Ii1 = Ii2 are achieved, indicating that the steadystate sharing of input current in two modules can be realized.

where Ii is the input current and Io is the output current. From (2) and (3), the DAHB converter module has a characteristic of current source, which is determined mainly by turn ratio of transformer n, phase-shifted angle , and leakage inductance Llk . When a common-duty-ratio D = / or a common-phaseshifted-angle control scheme is applied in the IPOP systems consisting of two DAHB converter modules, the input currents of each module are shown as follows: Ii1 = n1 ( ) Vo /(4 2 f Llk1 ) Ii2 = n2 ( ) Vo /(4 2 f Llk2 ). (4) (5)

Hence, from (4) and (5), the current sharing can be achieved in the presence of matches in individual module parameters, such

SHI et al.: COMMON-DUTY-RATIO CONTROL OF INPUT-PARALLEL OUTPUT-PARALLEL (IPOP)

3281

Fig. 6. Example curves for the ratio of the differences between input currents in two converter modules ( = D/D and = L/L).

fectly equal sharing of input current or load current among converter modules can be practically achieved. From the aforementioned analysis, in the presence of mismatches in various module parameters, the steady-state currentsharing performances for the IPOP system are achieved as follows: 1) mismatch in duty ratios has a slight effect on the sharing of input currents; 2) differences in leakage inductances slightly affects the sharing of input currents; 3) mismatch in the transformer turn ratios also has a slight effect on the sharing of input currents; 4) mismatches in other parameters, such as the input lter inductances and the half-bridge dividing capacitances, do not affect the sharing of input currents; 5) equal sharing of input currents among converter modules can be achieved perfectly by reducing the mismatches in various module parameters, which is practically implemented with the advance of modern manufacturing technology [19], [26]. Hence, the proposed commonduty-ratio control scheme can realize good current sharing in the IPOP system. IV. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SHARING IN THE IPOP CONVERTER SYSTEM

Also, from (14), the mismatches in various module parameters, e.g., D = 0 or L = 0, have a slight effect on the steady-state sharing of the input currents. To further analyze the steady-state sharing of input current in the presence of mismatches in various module parameters, we consider a typical IPOP converter with the following parameters of: Iin = 9 A, Vin = 48 V, Vo = 200 V, and D = 0.3. Based on (14), example curves are shown in Fig. 6, indicating that the differences between input current in the two modules vary to the extent that the parameters in individual modules are different. From Fig. 6, even in the presence of mismatches in duty ratio and transformer parameters (e.g., = 0.1 and = 0.1), the ratio of difference between input currents in the two modules is only about 0.064, namely, Ii1 Ii2 = 0.064 9 A = 0.576 A, indicating that a good current-sharing performance is achieved. Furthermore, with the advance of modern transformer manufacturing techniques, such as planar transformers with printed circuit windings, the mismatches in transformer turn ratio and leakage inductance can be made practically negligible. By using dedicated gate driving circuitries and choosing switching devices with similar junction capacitance, the mismatch in duty ratios can also be made negligible [19], [26]. Therefore, per-

During a starting procedure of the IPOP converter, or when a step change in input voltage and/or in load current happens, one of the two converter modules may undertake higher current, which may exceed the current ratings of switching devices leading to damage of the corresponding module. Hence, it is necessary to analyze dynamic sharing of currents in the presence of mismatches in various converter parameters. A. Analysis of Dynamic Sharing of Input Current in the Presence of Mismatches in Various Module Parameters With InputVoltage Disturbance From the small-signal model shown in Fig. 5(b), the input transfer functions can be derived as follows, as shown in (15), (16) at the bottom of this page, where (s)/in (s) = [4(L1 C1p j2 + L2 C2p j1 )s2 + 4(Rd1 C1p j2 v Rd2 C2p j1 )s + 2(j1 + j2 )] / + {4L1 L2 C 1p C2p (k1 + k2 )s4 [8L1 L2 (C2p g1 j1 + C1p g2 j2 ) 4C1p C2p (Rd1 L2 + Rd2 L1 )(k1 + k2 )]s3

G1 (s) =

i1 (s) i2 (s) 4C1p C2p (L2 L1 )s3 + 4C1p C2p (Rd2 Rd1 )s2 + 2(C1p C2p )s i i = vin (s) (2L1 C1p s2 + 2Rd1 C1p s + 1)(2L2 C2p s2 + 2Rd2 C2p s + 1) + 4(g1 L2 C2p g2 L1 C1p )s2 + 4(g1 Rd2 C2p g2 Rd1 C1p )s + g1 g2 (s) (2L1 C1p s2 + 2Rd1 C1p s + 1)(2L2 C2p s2 + 2Rd2 C2p s + 1) vin (s) (15)

G2 (s) =

i1 (s) + i2 (s) 4C1p C2p (L2 + L1 )s3 + 4C1p C2p (Rd2 + Rd1 )s2 + 2(C1p + C2p )s i i = vin (s) (2L1 C1p s2 + 2Rd1 C1p s + 1)(2L2 C2p s2 + 2Rd2 C2p s + 1) + 4(g1 L2 C2p + g2 L1 C1p )s2 + 4(g1 Rd2 C2p + g2 Rd1 C1p )s + g1 + g2 (s) 2 + 2R C s + 1)(2L C s2 + 2R C s + 1) (2L1 C1p s vin (s) d1 1p 2 2p d2 2p (16)

3282

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

+ [2(L1 C1p + L2 C2p + 2Rd1 Rd2 C1p C2p ) (k1 + k2 ) 8(Rd1 L2 + Rd2 L1 ) (C2p g1 j1 + C1p g2 j2 )]s2 [4L1 g1 j1 + 4L2 g2 j2 + 8Rd1 Rd2 (C2p g1 j1 + C1p g2 j2 ) 2(Rd1 C1p + Rd2 C2p )(k1 + k2 )]s + (k1 + k2 ) 4Rd1 g1 j1 4Rd2 g2 j2 }. (17) As seen from (15), the expression is equal to zero when the respective parameters in individual modules are the same; hence, the two modules share the input currents evenly. For (15) and (16), their initial value and terminal value of the step response are shown as follows: 1 =0 (18) s 1 [i1 (t) + i2 (t)] i (19) i = lim s G2 (s) = 0 s t=0+ s 1 [i1 (t) i2 (t)] i i = lim s G1 (s) s0 t= s 4(g1 g2 )(j1 + j2 ) (20) = k1 + k2 4Rd1 g1 j 1 4Rd2 g 2 j 2 i [i1 (t) i2 (t)] i
t=0+

= lim s G1 (s)
s

Fig. 7. Step response of G 1 (s) with difference in individual turn ratio of transformers.

i [i1 (t) + i2 (t)] i

1 s 4(g1 + g2 )(j1 + j2 ) (21) = k1 + k2 4Rd1 g1 j 1 4Rd2 g2 j 2

t=

= lim s G2 (s)
s0

[i1 (t) i2 (t)] i i (t) + i2 (t)] [ii1 i

=
t=

g1 g2 . g1 + g2

(22)

Equations (18) and (19) indicate that, at t = 0+, during the procedure of step response, mismatches in various module parameters do not affect the input current sharing. Equation (22) shows that the steady-state sharing of input current is affected by the mismatches in duty ratios, leakage inductors, and turn ratios of transformers, indicating that the same conclusions, as depicted in Section III, are achieved here. To further analyze the dynamic sharing of input current in the presence of mismatches in various module parameters, we consider a typical IPOP converter system with the following parameters: Iin = 9 A, Vin = 48 V, Vo = 200 V, D1 = D2 = 0.3, 1 = 2 = 0.3, n1 = n2 = 11 : 23 = 0.478, Llk1 = Llk2 = 12 H, V1ab = V2ab = 2Vin = 96 V, L1 = L2 = 240 H, f = 100 kHz, C1p = C2p = 1200 F, and Rd1 = Rd2 = 0.3 . First, only the circumstance of n1 = n2 is considered with other parameters identical. Then, Fig. 7 shows the MATLABi i simulated step response of G1 (s), i1 (t) i2 (t), with transformer turn ratio n1 varying at 0.44, 0.46, 0.478, and 0.52, respectively. Fig. 7 indicates that, even with the difference of 10% in transformer turn ratio (e.g., n1 = 0.52 and n2 = 0.478), the maximum value of the step response of G1 (s) is not more than 0.01 A. From (22), the steady-state input-current-sharing

Fig. 8. Step response of G 1 (s) with difference in individual leakage inductance of transformers.

performance can be described as follows: i [i1 (t) i2 (t)] i [i1 (t) + i2 (t)] i i =
t=

g1 g2 n1 n2 = . g1 + g2 n1 + n2

(23)

Equation (23) indicates that the steady-state sharing of input current is slightly affected by the difference in individual turn ratio of transformers, and that the two modules share input currents in inverse proportion to the difference in the turn ratio. In addition, it should be noted that the shocks in step response of G1 (s) are mainly induced by the open-loop operation of boost stages with constant duty ratio of 0.5, where input lter inductors and primary half-bridge capacitors produce the decaying shocks. Second, only the circumstance of Llk1 = Llk2 is considered. Fig. 8 shows the step response of G1 (s) with the leakage inductance of Llk1 varying at 13, 12.5, 12, and 11 H, respectively. From Fig. 8, the mismatch in leakage inductance

SHI et al.: COMMON-DUTY-RATIO CONTROL OF INPUT-PARALLEL OUTPUT-PARALLEL (IPOP)

3283

Fig. 9. Step response of G 1 (s) with difference in individual duty ratio or phase shift angle. Fig. 11. Step response of G 1 (s) with difference in individual input inductance.

Fig. 10. Step response of G 1 (s) with difference in individual half-bridge capacitances. Fig. 12. Step response of G 1 (s) with difference in individual damping resistances.

is similar to the mismatch in transformer turn ratio, which slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input current. From (22), the steady-state current-sharing performance can be depicted as follows: i [i1 (t) i2 (t)] i [i1 (t) + i2 (t)] i i =
t=

can be described as follows: [i1 (t) i2 (t)] i i [i1 (t) + i2 (t)] i i =

t=

g1 g2 Llk2 Llk1 = . g1 + g2 Llk2 + Llk1

g1 g2 D2 D1 = . g1 + g2 D2 + D1

(25)

(24)

Equation (24) indicates that the mismatch in leakage inductance is similar to the mismatch in transformer turn ratio, which has a slight effect on the steady-state sharing of input current. Third, only the circumstance of D1 = D2 is considered. Fig. 9 shows the step response of G1 (s) with the duty ratio D1 varying at 0.33, 0.315, 0.3, and 0.27, respectively. From Fig. 9, the mismatch in duty ratio is similar to the mismatch in transformer turn ratio, which slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input current. From (22), the steady-state current-sharing performance

Equation (25) indicates that the mismatch in duty ratio is similar to the mismatch in transformer turn ratio, which has a slight effect on the steady-state sharing of input current. Fourth, only the circumstance of C1P = C2P is considered. Fig. 10 shows the step response of G1 (s) with the primary half-bridge capacitance of C1P varying at 1000, 1100, and 1200 F, respectively. Fig. 10 indicates that, even with the difference of 20% in capacitances (e.g., C1P = 1000 F and C2p = 1200 F), the maximum value of the step response of G1 (s) is not more than 0.3 A and decaying exponentially. In addition, the mismatch in individual half-bridge capacitances

3284

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

Fig. 13. Step response of G 3 (s) with difference in individual module parameters. (a) With difference in primary half-bridge capacitances. (b) With difference in input-lter inductances. (c) With difference in turn ratio of transformers. (d) With difference in leakage inductances. (e) With difference in duty ratio. (f) With difference in damping resistances.

Fig. 14.

Simulation model for the IPOP converter system.

does not affect the steady-state sharing of input current, which is identical with what concluded in Section III. Fifth, only the circumstance of L1 = L2 is considered. Fig. 11 shows the step response of G1 (s) with the input inductance of L1 varying at 260, 250, and 240 H, respectively. From Fig. 11, the mismatch in input inductance is similar to the mismatch

in primary half-bridge capacitances, which slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input current, but has no effect on the steadystate sharing of currents. Finally, only the circumstance of Rd1 = Rd2 is considered. Fig. 12 shows the step response of G1 (s) with the damping resistances Rd1 varying at 0.4, 0.35, and 0.3 , respectively. Fig. 12

SHI et al.: COMMON-DUTY-RATIO CONTROL OF INPUT-PARALLEL OUTPUT-PARALLEL (IPOP)

3285

indicates that, even with the difference of 30% in damping resistances (e.g., Rd1 = 0.4 and Rd2 = 0.3 ), the maximum value of the step response of G1 (s) is not more than 0.25 A and decaying exponentially. Hence, the mismatch in damping resistances is similar to the mismatches in half-bridge capacitances, which slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input currents, but also has no effect on the steady-state current sharing. From the aforementioned analysis, in the presence of mismatches in various module parameters, the current-sharing performances for the IPOP system are achieved as follows: 1) the mismatch in transformer turn ratio slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input currents, and also has a slight effect on the steady-state sharing of input currents; 2) the mismatch in leakage inductance is similar to the mismatch in transformer turn ratio, which slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input currents, and also has a slight effect on the steady-state sharing of input currents; 3) the mismatch in duty ratio is also similar to the mismatch in transformer turn ratio; 4) the mismatch in primary half-bridge capacitances has a slight effect on the dynamic sharing of input currents, but does not affect the steady-state sharing of input currents; 5) the mismatch in input-lter inductances is similar to the mismatch in half-bridge capacitances, which slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input currents, but has no effect on the steady-state sharing of input currents; 6) the mismatch in damping resistances is also similar to the mismatch in half-bridge capacitances. B. Analysis of Dynamic Sharing of Load Current in the Presence of Mismatches in Various Module Parameters With Step Change in Load Current To further analyze the dynamic sharing of load current under step change in load current, the output transfer function is derived as follows, as shown in (26), (26.1), and (26.2) at the bottom of next page. Fig. 13 shows the MATLAB-simulated step response of i i G3 (s),o1 (t) o2 (t), in the presence of mismatches in various converter parameters. From Fig 13, it is indicated that loadcurrent sharing is slightly affected by the difference in various module parameters, and that generally, equal sharing of load current among converter modules can be achieved by reducing mismatches in various module parameters, which is practically achievable. V. SIMULATION VERIFICATIONS The proposed IPOP converter system and its control scheme are simulated in Saber (Version 2008.09SP1), and their simulation model is shown in Fig. 14. Based on the control model of the IPOP system, as shown in Fig. 5(b), the voltage controller is implemented with a type-II compensator with crossover frequencies of 1 kHz. The output of the voltage controller is compared with phase-shifted ramp signals in individual converter modules to generate corresponding duty ratios. The converter module 1 and module 2 are replaced by the largesignal model shown in Fig. 3. The same parameters utilized in Section IV are used here. The switching frequency of each converter module is 100 kHz.

Fig. 15. Simulation waveforms with the matches in various module parameters. (a) Response of individual input current to step change of 2 V in input voltage. (b) Response of individual output current to step change of 1 A in total load current.

Fig. 16. Simulation waveforms with the matches in various module parameters. (a) Response of output voltage to step change of 2 V in input voltage. (b) Response of output voltage to step-up change of 1 A in total load current.

Figs. 15 and 16 show simulation results with matches in individual module parameters, where Fig. 15(a) shows individual input-current response to a step change of 2 V in input voltages, and Fig. 15(b) shows individual load-current response to a step change of 1 A in total load current. The overshot in the waveforms of ii1 and ii2 in Fig. 15(b) is mainly caused by the resonance of input-lter inductors L1 and L2 with primary half-bridge capacitors C12 and C22 . From Fig. 16, it is veried that the IPOP system has good closed-loop

3286

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

Fig. 17. Simulation waveforms with n 1 = 0.44, n 2 = 0.478. (a) Response of individual input current to step change of 2 V in input voltage. (b) Response of individual output current to step change of 1 A in total load current.

Fig. 18. Simulation waveforms with L lk 1 = 11 H and L lk 2 = 12 H. (a) Response of individual input current to step change of 2 V in input voltage. (b) Response of individual output current to step change of 1 A in total load current.

response. The simulation results indicate that two converter modules equally share the total input current and load current in the presence of matches in their respective parameters. Fig. 17 shows the simulation results in the presence of differences in individual transformer turn ratio (n1 = 0.44, n2 = 0.478), demonstrating that mismatch in the turn ratio slightly affects dynamic sharing of the input currents and output currents. Additionally, Fig. 17 illustrates that the mismatch in turn ratio has a slight effect on steady-state sharing of input currents and output currents, but generally sharing of input current and output current has been achieved at steady-state operation of the IPOP system. Fig. 18 shows the simulation results in the presence of differences in individual leakage inductance (Llk1 = 11 H, Llk2 = 12 H), which are similar to the mismatch in transformer turn ratio. Fig. 19 shows the simulation results in the presence of differences in individual duty ratio (d1 = 0.33, d2 = 0.3), which are also similar to the mismatch in transformer turn ratio. Fig. 20 shows the simulation results in the presence of differences in primary half-bridge capacitances (C1P = 1000 F, C2P = 1200 F), demonstrating that the mismatch in halfbridge capacitance slightly affects dynamic sharing of input

Fig. 19. Simulation waveforms with d1 = 0.33 and d2 = 0.3. (a) Response of individual input current to step change of 2 V in input voltage. (b) Response of individual output current to step change of 1 A in total load current.

G3 (s) =

o1 (s) o2 (s) o1 (s) o2 (s) i i i i = o (s) o1 (s) + o2 (s) i i i

where,

(26) (26.1) (26.2)

2 o1 (s) = 2L1 C1p k1 s + 2(Rd1 C1p k1 2L1 g1 j1 )s + k1 4Rd1 g1 j1 (s) i 2L1 C1p s2 + 2Rd1 C1p s + 1 2 o2 (s) = 2L2 C2p k2 s + 2(Rd2 C2p k2 2L2 g2 j2 )s + k2 4Rd2 g2 j2 (s). i 2L2 C2p s2 + 2Rd2 C2p s + 1

SHI et al.: COMMON-DUTY-RATIO CONTROL OF INPUT-PARALLEL OUTPUT-PARALLEL (IPOP)

3287

Fig. 20. Simulation waveforms with C 1 P = 1000 F and C 2 P = 1200 F. (a) Response of individual input current to step change of 2 V in input voltage. (b) Response of individual output current to step change of 1 A in total load current.

Fig. 22. Simulation waveforms with R d 1 = 0.4 and R d 2 = 0.3 . (a) Response of individual input current to step change of 2 V in input voltage. (b) Response of individual output current to step change of 1 A in total load current.

Rd2 = 0.3 ), which are also similar to the mismatch in halfbridge capacitances. The simulation results show the same conclusions as depicted in Sections III and IV. The current sharing in the IPOP system is slightly affected by the differences of 10% in individual parameters, and the generally equal sharing of load current among converter modules can be achieved by reducing the mismatches in various module parameters, which is practically achievable. VI. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATIONS A prototype of the IPOP system consisting of two DAHB converter modules, as shown in Fig. 1, has been built to verify the effectiveness of the common-duty-ratio control scheme. The parameters of voltage loop are the same as those shown in Fig. 14. The specications of the overall system are the same as those in Section V and given as follows: 1) the input dc voltage of 4850 V; 2) output voltage of 200 V, directly regulated by closed-loop controller; and 3) maximum output current of 2 A. The component values for the power stage are designed as follows: primary half-bridge capacitances of C1P and C2P are equal to 1200 F; secondary half-bridge capacitances of C1S and C2S are all equal to 1000 F; input-lter inductances of L1 and L2 are the same at 240 H; transformer leakage inductances of Llk1 and Llk2 are all equal to 12 H; transformer turn ratios n1 and n2 are the same at 11:23; boost-circuitry damping resistances Rd1 and Rd2 are the same at 0.3 ; and duty ratios D1 and D2 are equal to 0.3. The switching frequencies for individual converter modules are 100 kHz. Power circuitry in each module is implemented with RFP450 for switching MOSFET devices. Fig. 23 shows experimental waveforms of the two converter modules in the presence of the designed matches in various

Fig. 21. Simulation waveforms with L 1 = 260 H and L 2 = 240 H. (a) Response of individual input current to step change of 2 V in input voltage. (b) Response of individual output current to step change of 1 A in total load current.

current, but has no effect on steady-state sharing of both input current and output current. Fig. 21 shows the simulation results in the presence of differences in individual input-lter inductances (L1 = 260 H, L2 = 240 H), which are similar to the mismatch in half-bridge capacitances. Fig. 22 shows the simulation results in the presence of differences in individual damping resistances (Rd1 = 0.4 ,

3288

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

Fig. 23. Experimental waveforms for the two modules with matches in various parameters. (a) Steady-state voltage and current waveforms at full load of 2 A. (b) Transformers primary voltage and current waveforms at full load. (c) Output-voltage and input-current waveforms with the step change of input voltage from 48 to 50 V. (d) Output-voltage and input-current waveforms with the step change of load current from 1 to 2 A.

parameters. There are, in fact, small mismatches in various parameters, with Fig. 23(a) and (b) showing the steady-state operation of the IPOP system. Fig. 23(c) shows dynamic operation of the IPOP system with step change of 2 V in input voltages, and Fig. 23(d) shows dynamic operation with step change of 1 A in load current. From Fig. 23, it can be seen that input currents have been shared equally by the two modules both in their steady state and dynamic operation, and that the interleaving operations have led to a reduction in the input-current ripple. Moreover, from vds (S11 )and vds (S21 ) (the voltage between the source and drain electrodes in MOSFETs S11 and S21 ) in Fig. 23(a), it is shown that the zero voltage switching of power MOSFETs is realized. From Fig. 23(c) and 23(d), it is veried that the IPOP system has a good performance of closed-loop output voltage. In addition, it should be noted that, due to open-loop operation of the boost-circuitry with constant duty ratio of 0.5, overshot in the waveforms of ii1 and ii2 in Fig. 23(c) is mainly caused by the resonance of input-lter inductors L1 and L2 with primary half-bridge capacitors C12 and C22 . In order to further verify that the common-duty-ratio scheme can achieve input current sharing even in the presence of mismatches in various module parameters, some component parameters are purposely adjusted to be different from each other. Fig. 24 shows experimental waveforms at full load of 2 A, with difference in individual transformer turn ratio, namely, n1 = 0.44 and n2 = 0.478. From Fig. 24(a), it can be seen that steady-state sharing of input current has been achieved with root mean square (RMS) of input currents Ii1 = 4.27 A and Ii2 = 4.48 A, and the accuracy of the steady-state current sharing varies according to the theoretic analysis described by (14). Also, from Fig. 24(a), interleaving operation of the two modules has led to a reduction in ripple of total input current, hence, resulting in smaller input lter. From Fig. 24(b), it can

Fig. 24. Experimental waveforms for the two modules at full load of 2 A, with n 1 = 0.44 and n 2 = 0.478. (a) Steady-state voltage and current waveforms; v d s (S 1 1 ) is the voltage between the source and drain electrodes in MOSFET S 1 1 ; v d s (S 2 1 ) is the voltage between the source and drain electrodes in MOSFET S 2 1 ; ii 1 is the input current in module 1 (2 A/div); ii 2 is the input current in module 2 (2 A/div). (b) Response of the individual input current and the output voltage to step change from 48 to 50 V in input voltage.

be seen that, even with step change from 48 to 50 V in input voltage, the generally dynamic sharing of input current has been achieved. In addition, Fig. 24(b) shows that the IPOP system has a good closed-loop performance. Therefore, it is experimentally

SHI et al.: COMMON-DUTY-RATIO CONTROL OF INPUT-PARALLEL OUTPUT-PARALLEL (IPOP)

3289

Fig. 25. Experimental waveforms for the two modules at full load of 2 A, with L lk 1 = 11 H and L lk 2 = 12 H. (a) Steady-state voltage and current waveforms; ii 1 is the input current in module 1 (2 A/div); ii 2 is the input current in module 2 (2 A/div). (b) Response of the individual input current and the output voltage to step change from 48 to 50 V in input voltage.

Fig. 27. Experimental waveforms with C 1 P = 1000 F and C 2 P = 1200 F. (a) Steady-state voltage and current waveforms. (b) Response of the individual input current and the output voltage to step change from 48 to 50 V in input voltage.

Fig. 26. Experimental waveforms with d1 = 0.33 and d2 = 0.3. (a) Steadystate voltage and current waveforms; ii 1 is the input current in module 1 (2 A/div); ii 2 is the input current in module 2 (2 A/div). (b) Response of the individual input current and the output voltage to step change from 48 to 50 V in input voltage.

Fig. 28. Experimental waveforms with L 1 = 260 H and L 2 = 240 H. (a) Steady-state voltage and current waveforms. (b) Response of the individual input current and the output voltage to step change from 48 to 50 V in input voltage.

veried that the common-duty-ratio scheme ensures the IPOP system to realize both the steady-state and dynamic current sharing even in the presence of mismatch in transformer turn ratio.

Fig. 25 shows experimental waveforms at full load of 2 A, with difference in individual leakage inductance, namely, Llk1 = 11 H and Llk2 = 12 H. From Fig. 25(a), it can be seen that difference in leakage inductance has a slight effect on the steady-state sharing of input currents with RMS Ii1 = 4.61 A and Ii2 = 4.21 A, and the accuracy of the

3290

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 27, NO. 7, JULY 2012

Fig. 29. Experimental waveforms with R d 1 = 0.4 and R d 2 = 0.3 . (a) Steady-state voltage and current waveforms. (b) Response of the individual input current and the output voltage to step change from 48 to 50 V in input voltage.

Fig. 30. Topology of the IPOP system consisting of two DAHB converter modules.

steady-state current sharing varies in accordance with the theoretic analysis indicated by (14). From Fig. 25(b), it can be seen that, even with the step change from 48 to 50 V in input voltages, the dynamic sharing of input current has been achieved. From Fig. 25, it is experimentally veried that the common-duty-ratio scheme ensures the IPOP converter to achieve both the steady state and dynamic current sharing even in the presence of mismatch in leakage inductance. Fig. 26 shows the experimental waveforms at full load of 2 A, with difference in individual duty ratio, namely, d1 = 0.33 and d2 = 0.3. From Fig. 26(a), it can be seen that difference in duty ratio has a slight effect on the steady-state sharing of input currents with their RMS Ii1 = 4.56 A and Ii2 = 4.23 A, and the accuracy of steady-state current-sharing varies in accordance with the theoretic analysis described by (14). From Fig. 26, it has been shown that both the steady state and dynamic current sharing have been achieved even in the presence of mismatch in duty ratio. Fig. 27 shows the experimental waveforms at full load of 2 A, with difference in individual half-bridge capacitances (C1P = 1000 F, C2P = 1200 F), demonstrating that mismatch in half-bridge capacitance slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input currents, but has no effect on the steady-state sharing of input currents. Fig. 28 shows the experimental waveforms at full load of 2 A, with difference in individual input-lter inductances (L1 = 260 H, L2 = 240 H), demonstrating that mismatch in inputlter inductances has a slight effect on the dynamic sharing of input currents, but has no effect on the steady-state sharing of input currents. Fig. 29 shows the experimental waveforms at full load of 2 A, with difference in individual damping resistances (Rd1 = 0.4 , Rd2 = 0.3 ), illustrating that mismatch in damping resistances slightly affects the dynamic sharing of input currents, but has no effect on the steady-state sharing of input currents. Therefore, the experimental results indicate that the commonduty-ratio control scheme ensures the IPOP system achieves a good performance of current sharing even in the presence of mismatches of 10% in various converter parameters. Furthermore, it is veried that the experimental results are similar to the simulations and theoretical analysis. VII. CONCLUSION In this paper, a common-duty-ratio control method has been proposed for an IPOP converter system consisting of two DAHB converter modules. Based on a steady-state dc model and a small-signal model, it has been proven that current sharing can be achieved without a dedicated input- or output-current sharing controller. By reducing differences in various module parameters, good current sharing can be achieved in both steady state and transient response. The simulation and experimental results verify the feasibility of implementing the proposed IPOP system in practice. In addition, the proposed control method can be extended to any IPOP converter system that consists of three or more converter modules, including traditional DAHB dcdc converter

Fig. 31. Topology of the IPOP system consisting of two dual-active full-bridge converter modules.

SHI et al.: COMMON-DUTY-RATIO CONTROL OF INPUT-PARALLEL OUTPUT-PARALLEL (IPOP)

3291

modules [27] and traditional dual-active full-bridge dcdc converter modules [28], as shown in Figs. 30 and 31, respectively, all which have a characteristic of current source.

REFERENCES
[1] N. Hur and K. Nam, A robust load-sharing control scheme for parallelconnected multi-systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 871879, Aug. 2000. [2] R. Giral, L. Martinez-Salamero, and S. Singer, Interleaved converters operation based on CMC, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 643652, Jul. 1999. [3] C. Yoon, J. Kim, and S. Choi, Multiphase DCDC converters using a boost-half-bridge cell for high-voltage and high-power applications, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 381388, Feb. 2011. [4] G. Yao, A. Chen, and X. He, Soft switching circuit for interleaved boost converters, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 8086, Jan. 2007. [5] W. Li and X. He, A family of isolated interleaved boost and buck converters with winding-cross-coupled inductors, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 31643173, Nov. 2008. [6] P. Wong, P. Xu, B. Yang, and F. C. Lee, Performance improvements of interleaving VRMs with coupling inductors, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 499507, Jul. 2001. [7] H. Mao, L. Yao, C. Wang, and I. Batarseh, Analysis of inductor current sharing in non-isolated and isolated multiphase DCDC converters, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 33793388, Dec. 2007. [8] V. J. Thottuvelil and G. C. Verghese, Analysis and control design of paralleled DCDC converters with current sharing, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 635644, Jul. 1998. [9] Y. Panov and M. M. Jovanoiv, Stability and dynamic performance of current-sharing control for paralleled voltage regulator modules, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 172179, Mar. 2002. [10] P. Li and B. Lehman, A design method for paralleling current mode controlled DCDC converters, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 748756, May 2004. [11] J. Abu-Qahouq, H. Mao, and I. Batarseh, Multiphase voltage-mode hysteretic controlled DCDC converter with novel current sharing, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 13971407, Nov. 2004. [12] X. Zhou, P. Xu, and F. C. Lee, A novel current-sharing control technique for low-voltage high-current voltage regulator module applications, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 11531162, Nov. 2000. [13] J. A. Abu-Qahouq, Analysis and design of N-phase current-sharing autotuning controller, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1641 1651, Jun. 2010. [14] W. Tang, F. C. Lee, and R. B. Ridley, Small-signal modeling of average current-mode control, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 112119, Apr. 1993. [15] M. M. Jovanovic, D. E. Crow, and Fang-Yi, A novel, low-cost implementation of Democratic load-current sharing of paralleled converter modules, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 604611, Jul. 1996. [16] J.-W. Kim, H.-S. Choi, and B. H. Cho, A novel droop method for converter parallel operation, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 25 32, Jan. 2002. [17] Y. Huang and C. K. Tse, Circuit theoretic classication of parallel connected DCDC converters, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 10991108, May 2007. [18] M. T. Zhang, M. Jovanovi, and F. C. Lee, Analysis and evaluation of interleaving techniques in forward converters, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 690698, Jul. 1998. [19] R. Giri, V. Choudhary, R. Ayyanar, and N. Mohan, Common-duty-ratio control of input-series connected modular DCDC converters with active input voltage and load-current sharing, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 11011111, Jul./Aug. 2006. [20] D. Wang, X. He, and J. Shi, Design and analysis of an interleaved ybackforward boost converter with the current autobalance characteristic, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 489498, Feb. 2010. [21] J. A. Qahouq, L. Huang, and D. Huard, Sensorless current sharing analysis and scheme for multiphase converters, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 22372247, Sep. 2008.

[22] H. Kim, M. Falahi, T. M. Jahns, and M. W. Degner, Inductor current measurement and regulation using a single DC link current sensor for interleaved DCDC converters, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 15031510, May 2011. [23] F. Peng, H. Li, G. Su, and J. S. Lawler, A new ZVS bidirectional DC DC converter for fuel cell and battery application, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 5465, Jan. 2004. [24] H. Li and F. Peng, Modeling of a new ZVS bi-directional DCDC converter, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 272283, Jan. 2004. [25] H. Li, F. Peng, G. Su, and J. S. Lawler, A small signal analysis of a dual half bridge isolated ZVS bi-directional dcdc converter for electrical vehicle applications, in Proc. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., 2005, pp. 27772782. [26] J. Shi, J. Luo, and X. He, Common-duty-ratio control of input-series output-parallel connected phase-shift full-bridge DCDC converter modules, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 33183329, Nov. 2011. [27] H. Li, F. Peng, and J. S. Lawler, A natural ZVS medium-power bidirectional DCDC converter with minimum number of devices, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 525535, Mar./Apr. 2003. [28] H. Bai and C. Mi, Eliminate reactive power and increase system efciency of isolated bidirectional dual-active-bridge DCDC converters using novel dual-phase-shift control, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 29052914, Nov. 2008. Jianjiang Shi received the Ph.D. degree in power electronics and motor driver from the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China, in 2003. From June 2003 to June 2005, he was a Postdoctoral Fellow with the College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. From September 2009 to August 2010, he was a Visiting Research Scholar with the National Science Foundations Engineering Research Center for Future Renewable Electric Energy Delivery and Management Systems, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Since July 2005, he has been with the College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, China, as an Associate Professor. His research interests include high-frequency high-power dcdc converters, three-phase power factor rectiers, solid-state transformer, and renewable energy generation. Lingbing Zhou was born in China in 1986. He received the B.S. degree in applied mechanical engineering from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, in 2009, where he is currently working toward the M.S. degree in the College of Electrical Engineering. His research interests include topology and modeling of high-frequency high-power dcdc converters, and renewable energy generation.

Xiangning He (M95SM96F10) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China, in 1982 and 1985, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, in 1989. From 1985 to 1986, he was an Assistant Engineer at the 608 Institute of Aeronautical Industrial General Company, Zhuzhou, China. From 1989 to 1991, he was a Lecturer at Zhejiang University. In 1991, he received a Fellowship from the Royal Society of U.K., and conducted research in the Department of Computing and Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, U.K., as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow for two years. In 1994, he joined Zhejiang University as an Associate Professor, where since 1996, he has been a Full Professor in the College of Electrical Engineering. He was the Director of the Power Electronics Research Institute and the Head of the Department of Applied Electronics, and is currently the Vice Dean of the College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University. His research interests include power electronics and their industrial applications.