I.

INTRODUCTION

Computer Simulations of Optimum Boost and Buck-Boost Converters

S. RAHMAN, Member, IEEE F.C. LEE, Member, IEEE Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

The developmeiit of mathematical models suitable for minimum weight boost and buck-boost converter designs are presented. The facility of an augumented Lagrangian (ALAG) multiplier-based nonlinear programming technique is demonstrated for minimum weight design optimizations of boost and buck-boost power converters. ALAG-based computer simulation results for those two minimum weight designs are discussed. Certain important features of ALAG are presented in the framework of a comprehensive design example for boost and buck-boost power converter design optimization. The study provides refreshing design insight of power converters and presents such information as weight and loss profiles of various semiconductor components and magnetics as a function of the switching frequency.

Manuscript received January 20, 1982. This work was supported by Subcontract G82313 CH8M to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University from TRW Defense and Space System Groups under NASA Lewis Research Center Prime Contract NAS3-2105 1. Authors' address: Electrical Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061.
0018-9251/82/0900-0598 $00.75
1982 IEEE

The advantages of a comprehensive power converter design approach were demonstrated previously on a buck converter and a half-bridge converter [1, 2]. The design allows one to identify a set of power converter design parameters which satisfies all design requirements and concurrently minimizes the converter weight and/or loss. This paper presents an extension of the previous work to design optimizations of a boost and buck-boost converter. First, mathematical models are formulated for the design and operation of these two power converters. Based on these mathematical models, an effective nonlinear programming technique, augmented Lagrange (ALAG) penalty function algorithm, is selected to search for the optimal set of converter design parameters. The facility of ALAG nonlinear programming technique is demonstrated successfully for the boost and buck-boost design. In addition, six variable scaling options are designed and implemented in the ALAG program to facilitate programming convergence and to expedite the rate of convergence for the complex and multidimensional nonlinear optimization problems. At the beginning the mathematical background of the ALAG-based nonlinear programming algorithm is presented briefly. This is followed by a discussion of boost and buck-boost converter power circuits. A more general buck-boost converter circuit is examined in detail. Various design requirements and physical operating characteristics of this converter are summarized in the form of equality and inequality constraints. The minimum weight design requirement is formulated as the objective function. For a detailed study of a boost converter see Lee et al. [3]. Following the presentation of the mathematical model, the programming requirements for using the ALAG-based algorithm are discussed. Special characteristics of an exterior point based optimization algorithm (like ALAG) are discussed here. The influence of scaling on the rate of convergence is also discussed. Impacts of variable scaling versus constraint scaling are examined. This results in a compromise selection of both scaling techniques in the algorithm. Finally, detailed results are presented for two sample problems of minimum weight design optimizations of a boost and a buck-boost converter. The sample designs provide detailed values for each component (e.g., R, L, C, cross-sectional area and number of turns of L, etc.) for various switching frequencies. These show the tradeoffs between weight and power loss as a function of switching frequency.
A. Power Converter Optimization-Mathematical Model

The utility of a design optimization is to pinpoint the detailed converter design which meets given performance
VOL. AES-18, NO.5

598

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

SEPTEMBER 1982

specifications and to achieve concurrently the minimization of a certain converter characteristic defined by the designer. The task may be represented as a mathematical model as follows:
P1: minimize f(X, Y), Subject to

,P(x, r)

f(x) + +[g(x), r]

XEE+

gi(X, Y, Z) >.- O. hj(X, Y,Z)=0,

i= 1,2,...,p

j= 1,2,...,q.

Here X is an n-dimensional vector representing power- and control-circuit parameters to be optimally selected. The components of X are values of R, L, C, the switching frequency, and the design details of the magnetic components such as core area, mean core length, permeability, wire size, number of turns, and turns ratio of multiple-winding magnetics. The E+ is the positive orthant of n-dimensional Euclidean space E". The YE El represents the vector of constants related to component characteristics. These constants are known to designers. Examples include winding and core densities, winding resistivity, window-fill factor of the core, winding-pitch factor (i.e., the ratio of the mean length of one-turn winding to the core circumference), transistor and diode conduction and switching characteristics, core-loss parameters, intended maximum operating flux of given magnetics, and equivalent series resistance (ESR) as well as energy-storage characteristics of filter capacitors. The Z E E+ represents the vector of performance requirements to be met by the optimum design. Controlindependent requirements include input-output voltages, output power, maximum weight, minimum efficiency, source EMI, and maximum output ripple. Control-independent requirements include regulator stability, minimum audiosusceptibility rejection, maximum output impedance, transient response subjected to a step change of the input voltage or the load. Further details of design optimization approach can be found in Rahman and Lee [4].
II. ALAG-BASED OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE The augmented Lagrangian penalty function (or ALAG) technique is essentially a method for solving a constrained optimization problem using an unconstrained optimization method with the help of some transformation. In other words, this is a concept of minimizingf(x) (see P1) with an unconstrained optimization method while maintaining implicit control over the constraint violations by penalizing the augmented f(x) at points where the constraints are violated.

One approach to implementing the above is as follows. Choose 4) and a sequence rk such that x(rk) is determined some way and x(rk) -> x* as k -- oo. x* is the value of the vector x for which f(x) is minimized.
B. Penalty Function Technique

problem.

where *( ) is the augmented f(x), r, in general, is a vector of controlling parameters, and 4) is a real-valued function which imposes the penalty. However, the action of imposing the penalty is controlled by r. It may be observed here that with a suitable choice of 4. and its control r, one can use an efficient unconstrained algorithm (e.g., Broyden's quasi-Newton method, see [5]) in order to completely solve the constrained

As mentioned earlier, the penalty function transformation technique imposes an increasing penalty on the augmented objective function as constraint violation increases. Various penalty functions and their modifications have been proposed in connection with the penalty function based transformation. Penalty functions utilized in the algorithms for our study are discussed in the fol-

lowing.

equality constraints to alleviate some of the computational difficulties. The modified penalty functions contained controlling parameters 0 E Ep+q and o E E+P+q whereas the traditional penalty function included only one controlling parameter r E E+.. Powell [7] and Haarhoff and Buys [8] proposed algorithms in which the vector of parameters a is changed only when the rate of convergence is not satisfactory and e is changed every iteration so as to enforce constraint satisfaction. The important feature of this approach is that lI/ri is not required to tend to zero for the convergence of the algorithm. Rockafellar [9] proposed a suitable modification of the Powell-Hestenes augmented Lagrangian (ALAG) penalty function to solve the inequality constrained problem. Fletcher [10] proposed algorithms for solving the inequality constrained problem using the ALAG penalty function technique. The augmented Lagrangian penalty function for P1 is obtained by combining the Powell-Hestenes penalty function and the Rockafellar penalty function.

at about the same time, proposed very similar modifications to the traditional penalty function technique for

Hestenes [6], Powell [7], and Haarhoff and Buys [8],

tp(x, A, a) = f(x) - > (Ajhj +

I
-

hj

A. Outline of a Transformation gi = min[(gi - A5/oi), 01, ai=AJ/,, VL For reasons of simplicity let us consider only the set of design variables X and the inequality constraints from P1. In the preceding function Ai/ori represents a penalizing
RAHMAN/LEE: COMPUTER SIMULATIONS OF OPTIMUM BOOST AND BUCK-BOOST CONVERTERS
599

? 2 (ii) z

threshold for ith inequality constraint. Increases in :ri to enforce faster convergence reduce the penalty threshold level and lead to closer constraint satisfaction. For inequality constraints, when gi > 0, Ai (or Oi) is relaxed to zero. Otherwise it is changed so as to make the corresponding constraint active at the current solution X. The ALAG penalty function algorithms are based on the following duality results. Let X (A) = X (A, cr) be the unconstrained minimizer of (x, A, o-) for specified A and Cr. Then the dual function at X(A) may be represented as d(A) = k[X(A), A, a]. The duality results may be summarized as follows:

A. Design Variables
There are 24 unknown variables representing the details of buck-boost converter magnetic design. This circuit contains a two-stage input-filter, a two-winding energy storage inductor, a power transistor, a diode, and an output filter. The design variables are

RL, R2, Rp dc winding resistances of inductors LI, L2, Lp, respectively; note: Np = N, is

L1, L,

R,

ad/aAj

-hj,

1, 2, ..., q

Lp

ad/a Xi = -min(gi, Xi/o1), i = 1, 2, ... p

C,, C4, C5 A1, A2, AP

A2d [-NTGlN

I3- I

0?]

ZA, Z,, Zp
N1, N,2, Np

where G is the Hessian of W with respect to X. S is a diagonal matrix with elements oi corresponding to inactive inequalities gi >, 0, and the columns of the matrix N are the gradients of equalities and violated inequalities gi < 0, at X(A). These duality results indicate that A should be varied so as to maximize d(A). For details regarding iterative methods for varying A and associated penalty function algorithm see [11].

A,1 A,2, Ap,

F eff

used in the design example input filter damping resistor input filter inductors primary inductance of two-winding inductor filter capacitors core cross-sectional area of inductors LI, L2, and Lp, respectively mean magnetic path length of inductors L,, L,, and Lp, respectively number of turns on inductors LI, L,, and Lp, respectively; note: Np = N, is used in this design example winding areas per turn for Ll, L,, and Lp, respectively transistor switching frequency overall operating efficiency.

It should be mentioned here that in order to separate the resonant frequencies of the two input filter stages the following relationship between LI and L2 is used: L1I/L2 = PE2; see [13] for details. III. BOOST AND BUCK-BOOST POWER In order to perform the tradeoff study between CONVERTERS switching frequency, and power loss and weight, the In this section the circuit schematics (see Figs. 1 and variable F is held constant for each run of the optimiza2) for boost and buck-boost converters are presented tion program. Therefore there is a net total of 22 along with a detailed examination of a more general variables in the design optimization program. buck-boost converter circuit. The purpose is to define this converter design problem in such a way that the applicability of ALAG-based optimization technique B. Design Constants can be demonstrated. The input-output relationship and These design constants are obtained either through derivations of the constraints are given in [12]. The results of design optimization are presented in a later manufacturer's specifications or the designers' own experiences; numerical values are given in the parenthesis, section. all units are in MKS system:

RL
Fig. 1. Schematic of boost converter.

Eo

FC winding pitch factor

Fw p

RL
I n

LE

VBE

BI DK VST

D, DC

Fig. 2. Schematic of buck-boost converter.

600

TSR TSF

= (mean length per turn) (core circumference) (1.9) core window fill factor (0.4) conductor resistivity (0. 172 x 10 -7 Q m) core density (7800) conductor density (8900) maximum operating flux density (0.4) weight per farad (DK,, DK4, DKS/210, 1100, 72) transistor saturation voltage drop (0.25 V) transistor emitter-to-base voltage drop (0.8 V) transistor turn-on rise time (0.15 Ls) transistor tum-off fall time (0.2 ,us)
-

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

VOL. AES-18, NO. 5

SEPTEMBER 1982

TND TFD TRE KH

KS source weight density (30.8 W/kg) XN turns ratio (1.0).

VD diode conduction voltage drop (0.9 V) diode turn-on rise time (0.03 us) diode turn-off fall time (0.05 pis) diode turn-off recovery time (0.03 ,us) heat sink weight density (15.4 W/kg)

PIF

[P0/(effEl)J2 (RI

R2).

2. PQ = transistor saturation loss + base drive loss + transistor turn on loss + transistor turn off loss,

PQ

(POVST)/(eff El)

(0.1 POVBE)/(eff El)

C. Power Converter Performance Requirements The following power converter performance requirements are specified. These performance requirements are employed in the next section to formulate design constraints.

+ (TsRF/6) {[(EO + VD)/nI + Es + 2VsT}

[(POI(eff El)) (Eo + nE1)/EO

-

E1EO/(2Lp(Eo

nE1)F))]

+ (TSFF/6) {[(EO + VD)In] + Es + 2VST}

P0 output power (70 W) S frequency-dependent source conducted interference (0.1 A); this specification limits the maximum percentage of the switching current being reflected back to the source to ensure that the source is not disturbed much by the switching action downstream VR output ripple factor (1 percent) which is defined as output ripple factor (percent) = (peak-topeak output ripple voltage)/(nominal dc output voltage) PEI input-filter resonant peaking limit (2); the input filter peaking at its resonant frequency should be limited in order not to degrade the stability and the audiosusceptibility of the converter.

E. output voltage (37.5 V)

El input voltage (28 V)

{(PO/(eff E))((Eo + nE,)/EO]

+

[E1EO/(2Lp(Eo + nE1)F)J}.

3. PD = diode conduction loss + turn on loss + turn off loss,

PD = (POVD)/(effEO) + [nE1 + E0)/12]

{[Po(Eo
+

nE1)/(eff nE1E4)J

[EIEOI(2nLp(Eo + nE1)F)]}

- [(nE1 + Eo)(TsD + 3TRE)F/12]{[PO(EO

+ nE1)I(eff nE1Eo)]-[EjEOI(2nLp(Eo+nE,)F)]}.

Objective Function: F = WI + WTW + WC + WS + WH where

WI (core weight) =
WTW (winding weight) =

4. POF = two-winding inductor (1) copper and core

losses,

DI(A1Z, + A2Z2 + ApZp)

4FcDC(Ac1N1 Va
+

POF = [Eo/(Eo + nE1)]{[PO(E0 + nE1)/(eff E1E0)]2

+

AC2N2fA2 +

2Acj,,NP0VXp)

[E52Ej/(12L2(EO

WC (capacitor weight) = DK3C3 + DK4C4 + DR5C, WS (source weight) = P0/(eff KJ) WH (heat sink weight) = Po(l - eff)/(eff K.,)
D. Design Constraints

+ [nE,/(Eo +
+ nE,)2F2)] +

nE,)2F2)1}Rp nE)] {[EjE^/( 1 2n2L2(E0

+

(Eo + nE1)2P^/
+

(eff2n2E#E2)}n2Rp
-

[EIEo/((Eo + nEj)Np);

flux density, magnetic winding resistance, and some other converter properties. These are modeled in the form of constraints presented in the following: 1. Loss constraint C(l)
=

Highlights of the buck-boost converter characteristics include power loss, core window area, core 5. PCAP

(80 Zp VT) (0.0022).

=

output filter capacitor ESR loss,

PCAP = [nE1R5/(EO +

nEi)1([E2Ej/(12n2Lp2 (Eo
nE1)Po(nE1E0 eff)]

0:
-

+ nE,)2F2)J {[(EO +
-

C(1)

PJ(1/eff) - 1]- PIF

PQ

PD - POF

(pdlEO)}2

Pj/(nE,EO)).
LI, L2, T, C(2) = C(3) =
601

where PIF = input filter copper loss

C(12) = 0,

6. Parasitic resistance for

RAHMAN/LEE: COMPUTER SIMULATIONS OF OPTIMUM BOOST AND BUCK-BOOST CONVERTERS

C(2), C(3), C(12) = RiAci - 4QFcNi Vi, i = 1,2,p.

7. Input filter peaking constraint C(4) = 0,

C(14) = 0.97 - eff : 0 C(15) = RT-R - R2 0 C(16) = C3 - 1.0 X 10-6 > 0

C(17) = C4 - 1.0 X 10-6 > 0.

C(4) = (PE1)2 - [1 + (R3C3/L1)]/{(C4/C3)2

+

(R3C3/L1)[1 - (C4/C3) - (L2/L1)(C4/C3)]2}.

In constraint C(15), the sum of R, and R2 are limited to within a certain predetermined value RT (= 0.1 Q in the present examples). IV. SPECIAL FEATURES OF ALAG

8. Operating flux density constraint C(5) = C(6) =

C(9)

0,

C(5), C(6) = NAi - L,Po/(eff EBsi) i= 1. 2

A. Exterior Point Minimization

ALAG penalty function based optimization is an exterior point unconstrained minimization technique. This sequential method is characterized by its use of infeasible points. Such an example is presented in Fig. 3. It can be seen here that the initial starting point for x is outside the feasible region, and the algorithm forces convergence to a feasible point in the limit. The intuitive basis can be seen as follows. The penalty term will be very large if x stays too far from the feasible region. Therefore, in the interest of reducing (and ultimately eliminating) the penalty function, optimum x will eventually be inside the feasible region. Thus the advantage of an exterior point algorithm is that the initial estimates for the design variables need not be feasible.
TRAJECTORY OF
-XIx2z '12

C(9)

NpAp

(L1/BSp){[Po(Eo

+ nE1)/(eff EIEo)]

+ E1Eo/(2Lp(Eo +

nE1)F)}

9. Window area constraint C(7) = C(8) = C(10) = 0.

C(7), C(8) =

(NiAci/Fw)05
i = 1, 2.

- Z1/2Tr + \/A7/2;

C(10) =

(2N0Acp/Fw)05
[P0(E0
+

- Z42T +

A2 .

10. Output ripple factor constraint C(II) = 0,

C(11)

VR
+
-

nE1)/(effEIE6n)
nE1)C5F).

Ej1(2Lp(Eo + nE1)nF)]R5

Po/(2EO(Eo

UNCONSTRAINED MINIMA

11. Frequency dependent source EMI constraint C( 3) : 0,

C(13) = (S/\/T+7F7203)T) (1/\7WT7+l2) - [(L2C4/L1C3)(2rF

where
A
=
=

I) (lID)

FEASIBLE REGION

(C4/C3)(2nF V7 3I )2]-f
Fig. 3. Minimize -xx2 subject to x + x2
0,

-xI + x2

+ I

0.

[2Po(Eo + nE1)I( Xeff E1E)] sin[ITET/(4 + nEf)]

[E1Eo/(irLp(Eo + nEi)F)](cos[ET4/(F4E + nE)] - sin[rEo/(Eo + nE1)]/[rEJ,Q/(F + nE1)])
B. Scaling

D = R3(C/L1 )5.

12. Other inequality constraints C(14), C(15), C(16), C(17) > 0. The following constraints are employed to confine the design variables in certain reasonable ranges in order to facilitate fast convergence:
602

Penalty function methods can be computationally ineffective if certain constraints dominate others. Due to the wide ranging values of design variables and the complicated nature of the constraints such computational difficulties are not uncommon in the use of ALAG technique. Fortunately, the use of appropriate scaling can greatly alleviate this problem. Two such scaling methods (variable and constraint) are discussed below.
VOL. AES-18, NO.5 SEPTEMBER 1982

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

Variable Scaling. In a switching power converter design, the values of design variables are scattered over a wide range. For example, the capacitance may be on the order of 10A and the switching frequency on the order of 105. These widely scattered values of variables are causes of convergence difficulties. Therefore the variable scaling technique is provided in the computer program to scale all the variables. For example, for xl = 0.5 x 10-,x2 = 0.8 x 103, onecanuse VSCAL(1) = 10-7, VSCAL (2) = 102, SO that

START

Read input data|

Set EPS(l) compute circuit CONSTANTS

compute all the scale factors

CALL SCALES

Scale the input or Starting X o vector

CALL ALAGA Use Augmented Lagrangion Penalty function algorthm to solve the problem From ALAGA
r nd values of varables using variable scale factors

xl/VSCAL (1) = 5.0

x2/VSCAL (2) = 8.0
where VSCAL (1), VSCAL (2) are scale factors for the respective variables. See Available Scaling Options below. For a reasonably acceptable accuracy, the tolerance for variable convergence is set around EPS = 10-6 to 10-7. For the program to exit from the iterative computation through the variable convergence criterion, it must satisfy the following requirement:
maxk k) - i
e for all i.

Compute optimal performance

factors for the circuit
Print Results

Fig. 4. Flowchart showing major operations in algorithm.

That is, the largest difference between two values (from consecutive iterations) of any variable must be less than the tolerance required. It should also be mentioned that the program can also exit via a constraint convergence criterion discussed in the following. Constraint Scaling. It is very unlikely that the initial guess of starting point can satisfy all the constraints to the extent that each equality constraint residual is relatively smaller than the constraint tolerance and each inequality constraint is also satisfied. If that is the case, then we have already solved the problem without using the computer. In reality, based on the set of initial guesses, the constraint values can vary over a wide range. It is desirable to scale each constraint by a factor so that the effect of violating a given constraint is of the same order of magnitude as the effect of violating any other constraint. Unfortunately, there are so far no universal guidelines for selecting the constraint scaling parameters. It has been observed that faster convergence can be achieved by the proper selection of these parameters. However, improper use of constraint scaling can cause divergence problems. Details on the available scaling options are given in the next section. Whenever the maximum scaled constraint violation AKK(k) is less than AKMIN (constraint tolerance), program convergence is reached. The ALAG-based optimization program can be run by using variable scaling alone. However, judicious selection of constraint scale factor has been found to aid rapid convergence. Available Scaling Options. There are six different user-selectable scaling options programmed in the

optimization model and simulation package. In each case, with the exception of first two, the subroutine SCALES (see flow chart in Fig. 4) determines the scale factors on the basis of the input information. The options are as follows:
1) No scaling; the variable and function values are used unmodified in the main program. 2) All scale factors are set by the user. 3) Scaled variable values lie within a user selectable range. No scaling for constraint and the objective functions. 4) Variable scaling is same as in option 3. However, scaled values of constraints and objective functions lie between 1.0 and -1.0. 5) Scaled variable values and scaled moduli of the constraint and objective functions lie within a userselectable range. 6) Variable and objective function scalings are same as in option 5. However, the squares of the scaled constraint functions lie within a user selectable range. The designer chooses the scaling option on the basis of input information. He must pay particular attention to the diversity of variable and constraint function values. Also, this option allows him to place varying amounts of emphasis on different quantities (e.g., variable, constraint, and objective functions). Fig. 4 presents a flowchart summarizing the major operations within the ALAG-based optimization algorithm used for this research project. Note that the optimization is carried out internal to the main subroutine ALAGA which in turn uses some other subroutines to perform the optimization.
603

RAHMAN/LEE: COMPUTER SIMULATIONS OF OPTIMUM BOOST AND BUCK-BOOST CONVERTERS

TABLE I Optimization Results for Buck-Boost Converter

F

20K

30K

40K

50K

Buck-Boost Converter Optimization Results 90K 80K 70K 60K

100K

110K
0.934x10 51.336
0.272x10

120K

Al
Ni

0.324x10
50.613

0.288x10
44.098

0.254x10
41.895

0.226x10

0.202x10
40.050

0.174x10
43.077 0.323x10

0.938xl0
61.340 0.321x10

0.942x10 57.774

0.954x10 53.123

0.911x10
48.837

40.892
0.366x10

ACI 0.543x10

0.444x10

0.398x10

0.335x10

0.309x10

0.284x10

0.251x10

Zl
RI LI
A2

0.473xlO-I 0.417xlO-1 0.387x10-1 0.366xlO- 0.346xlO-I 0.340x10oI 0.345x10-I 0.333xlO- 0.315xlO-1 0.306x10- 0.291x0_I
0.699x10

0.698x10
0.167x10

0.695x10
0.141x10

0.694x10

0.702x10

0.729x10(

0.766x10

0.752x10

0.756xl0 0.712x10

0.754x10

0.768x10

0.217x10

0.123x10

0.108x10

0.103x10

0.805x10

0.763x10

0.671x10

0.619x10

0.203x10-4 0.166xl-U4 0.145x10-4 0.128x10-4 0.125x10-4 0.167x10-4 0.121x10-4 0.113x10-4 0.103x10-4 0.966x10-5 0.0964x10-5
27.lb7
25.535 24.420

N2
AC2
Z2

24.121

21.543

14.872

15.952

16.099
0.29

16.440 -6 0.284xl0

16.539

15.377

0.534xlO6 0.452xlO6
0.355xlO1

0.400xlO 6

0.370xlO6 0.336xlO
0.262xlO 0.297xlO 0.358xlO

0.295xlO
0.246xlO
0.342xl()
I

0.310xlU
0.234xlO 0.234xlO

7xl0

0.274x10-6 0.271x10-6
I

0.318xlO 1 0.295xlO 1 0.279x10

0.228xlOI
0.238xlO

0.222xlO 0.243xlO

217xlO 1 0.212xlO 0.231xlO

R2
L2
AP
NP

0.300xlO1 d.72,xlO
0.327xlO 68.957

0.302xlO 1

0.304xlO1

0.305xlO
4 0.409xlO

0.271x1lOI
0.14Ox10
50.082

0.245xlO 0.224xlO
-4

0.558xlO4 0.469xlO 0.248xlO 40.207xlO

63.842 59.057

0.268xlO 4 0.254xlO

0.237xlO
-4

0.206xlO
-4

0.180x10 55.911

0.165xlO
54 317
.

0.160xlO
2 7 32 5
.

0.149xlO
27.883

0.146xlO4
29,712

0 131xlO
30.358

0.886xlO
44.22

-5

ACP 0.172xlO ZP RP LP C3

0.452xlO1I

0.lllxlO 0.115xlO 0, 125xlO 0.142xlO 0.395xlO 1 0.358xlO 1 0.335xl(I 0 332xlO

0.135xlO6 0.179xlO6
O.324xlO

0.175xlO

0.188xlO

0.181xlO

0.175xlO

0.301xlO

0.297xlOl
n.807xlO
0.156xlO

0.307xl0

0.299xlO-1 0.314xlO0.384xlO

0.281 0.269 0.294 0.301 -4 --4 4 4 0.940xlO 0.692x10 0,545x10 0.461xlO

0.182 0.261 -4 4 0.428xlO 0.326x(10

1.173

0.796xlO
0.148xlO

n.79hxlO 07xl-4 087l-4 n.791x10 071l-4 0.188xlO

0.172x10)

0.179xlO4
0.931

-484l

0.103x10-3 0.779x10-4 0.621x10-4 0.519x10-4 0.453x10-4 0.389x10-4 0.438x10-4 0.353x10-4 0.128x10-4 0 115xl(-14 0.774x10-5
1.128
1.106

R3
C4

1.136

1.166

1.228

1.129

1.330

1.408

0.974

0.162xlO-4 0.112x10-4 0.898x10-5 0.760xlU-5 0.672x10-5 0.563>;10- 5 0.836c10-5 0.788x1l)-5 0.720xlO-5 0.605x1)-5 0.399x10-5
0.148x10 3 0.121x10 3 0.107xlO 0.8208 0.8238 0.8271

C5
E

0.985x10 018295
2 1187

907xO1

0.892xlO

0.8319 2 3252
2 1994

0.0567
2.4924

0.112xlO 0.8751

0.lUlxlO
0.8761 2.9771

0.881xlO 0.8783
3,1171
2.1182

0.868xl()
0.8751 3.3447
2.1492

0.819xlt)
0.8691
3.5515
2.2235

PQ 1.4679
PD

1.6866 2.1174 0.2275

1.9036 2.1389 0.2489

10.3432

2.8014
1.9662

2.0944

2.1650

2.1445

2.0273
0 3188

PCAp 0.1958
PMAG 11.5281
PT 15.2862 WS

0.2637

0.2736 9.3489 14.1471

0.2761
6.7959 11.7030
2 6529

0.3397
4.8831
9.9904

0.2964
4.1676
9 6993 2 5876 0 6298

0.3016
4 1959

0.3018
4.4609 10.5377

10.9421
14.9736

9.8383
14.3857

4.5803
9.9035
2 5943

14.6346
2 7479
0 9503

9.9915
2.5971
0.6488

2.7689
0.02992
0.02419 0.0501

2.7589
0.9723
0.02114

2.7398

2.7320 0.9186
0.01214

2.5971

2.6149

WHI 0.9925
WI WW
WC

0.9341
0.01394
0.01068

0.7603
0,01138

0.6487
0.847xlO

0.6431
0 793x10

0.6843

0 01678

0.762xlO

0.691x10

0.583xlO

0.01639 0.03744
0.03753

0.01275
0.03065

0.911xlO 2 0.857xlO 2 0.790x10 2 0.735xlO 2 O705xlO 2 0.652xlO 2 0.650xlO 2

0.02342
0.02126

0.02634
0.2462 3.7249

0.1>2073

0.02646
0.01638

0.02336
0.01528
3.2759

0.01694
0.01467
3.2491

0.0153
0.01344 3.2747

0.0119
0.01234

WMAG. 0.0534
WT

0.02952 3.7583

0(.01995
3. 4 !3

3.8650

3.8062

3.6954

3.2886

3. 3234

V. OPTIMIZATION RESULTS OF BOOST AND BUCK-BOOST CONVERTERS By treating the switching frequency as a constant in each optimization run, a set of converter parameter data
is

To facilitate comparison of the optimal converter designs between the boost converter and the buck-boost

obtained.

converter

This set of data represents the optimum design under the specified switching frequenruns are

inststhewloss are weighT breakdo agarnst the switching freuwenght breakdowns are plotted
breakdowns
an boos.thconvereres ade bintionseutiedl
are shown

converter, the same input-output stants, and converter performance

used.

and ponviemre designmincsights,cthoss and

are

design rquirments, specifications

con-

cy. A number of

quency

between 20 kHz to 130 kHz in 10 kHz steps. Detailed optimization results for buck-boost and boost converters are presented in Tables I and II, respectively.
604

executed by varying the fre-

below:

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

VOL. AES-18, NO.5

SEPTEMBER 1982

TABLE II

Optimization Results for Boost Converter

20K
0.469x10

30K

40K

Boost
50K

Converter Optimization Design Results

60K

70K

80K

90K

100K

110K 0.175x10

120K

Ai
N1

0.438x10
79.345

0.436x10
79.098

0.358x10
69.350
0.243x10

0.459x10
27.441

0.279x10
26.907

0.229x10
27.109

0.236x10 19.767

0.208x10

0.174x10
22.771

94.297

22.550

22.798

ACI

0.334x106
0.405xlO1
0.697xl10

0.322x10

60.319x106

0.119xlO 6 0.856x1O

70.783x10

7 0.604x10 7 0.634x10 7 0.556x10

70.555x10
0.104xlO1

Zl

0.349xlO1

0.347x101 0.289x101 0.169xlO1

1 0.708x1O 1 0.645x10 I

0.137xlO1

0.129x101

0.111X10- 1.112xlO1
0.673x10

0.105xlO1

RI

0.676x10- I0.678x1O

0.6"8:. 10 10.688xlO 1 0.659xl10

0.711x10

0.710x10
O.562x10

Li
A2 N2

0.665x10-4

0.527xI0O4
46.461

0.523xI0

0.376xlO14
44.602

0.189xlO 4 0.IlJxlU

40.931xI0
50.203x10
10.216

5 0.673x10 5 0.672x10 5 0.564x10 5 0.135x10 5 0.127x10 S 0.103x10

0.306x10 5 0.250x10
48.282

50.247x10
46.648

5 0.186x10 5 0.506x10 5 0.247xi0 8.288 10.119

50.102xl0
12.945

11.584

12.280

12.934

AC2 0.369xlO 6 Z2

0.351x106
0.274x0l 0.176x10

0.349x10 6 0.278x1O 6 0.135x10 6 0.102x10

1 0.240x10 1 0.I30x10 1 0.286x1O 1 0.181x10
I

0.291xlO 1 0.276x10

R2

0.300x10
0.222x10 0.178x10 34.332

I0.275x1O I0.274x1O

0.106x10

60.952x10 10.100xlo

7 0.726x10 7 0.709x10 7 0.642x10 1

0.878x102

0.878x10 2 0.829x10
I

70.642x10 20.829x10

0.204x1O 1 0.200xI10

0.243xlO 1 0.256x10

0.267x10

I0.267xl0
50.187x10
0.318x10 76.534 0.285x10
0.139xlO 0.626
5

L2
AS
N5

0.174xlO4
34.494

0.125x10 4 0.631x10 5 0.375x10

50.310x10
45.681

5 0.224x10 5 0.224x10 5 0.188x10

0.127x10-4 0.108x10
37.577

0.902xl0
35.774

0.886x10-5 0.64-xlO
35.111 45.280

0.592x10 5 0.433x10
74.055

0.440x10 5 0.331x10
70.519 76.611

AC5 0.398x10 6
Z5

0.329x106 0.295x106
0.309xlO1 0.282xlO1

0.259xIO 6 0.101xlO 6 0.912x10

0.265x10

70.816x10
0.185xlO1
0.1786

7 0.396x10 7 0.347x10 7 0.291x10

0.340xlO

0.199xlO
0.1353

-.194x10
0.1648

0.161xlO1
0.510

0.154x10
0.588 0.317xlO

0.141x10
0.626

R5
L5 C3

0.477xI0

0.531x10
0.273x10
4

0.504x10 0.229x10
5-

0.541x10

0.255xl0

0.220x10
5 5

0.245x10

0.246x10

0.133xlO

0.322xlO
0.162x10

0.318x10l 0.201x10.
0.162x10
5

5 0.200x10 ~ 5 0.200x105 0.200x105

0.239x10

0.320x10
0.200x10
-

0.244x10
205x
-5

0.239x10

-59x1- 0

0.200xl
0.522x10
5

R3
C4

0.163xlO1

0.162x10

0.524x10

0.524x10

0.524x10

0.524x10

0.523x10 2 0.523x10

0.655x10 5 0.161x10

50.159x10
0.678x10

0.IlOlxlO
0.595x10
0.9462 0.5729

5 0.10OxlO 5 0.lOQxlO

50.lOOxlO
0.442x10
0.9336 0.7581 1.8622

S 0.10Ox10 5 0.996x10 6 0.103x10

50.100x10
0.378x10

C6
E

0.109x10 3 0.768x10
0.9397 0.3883 0.9465
0.4427

0.511x10
0.9389 0.6319 1.8243

0.468x10
0.9355 0.6945 1.8457

0.390x10 4 0.376x10

0.389x10
(

0.9467 0.5106
1.7776

0.8991
0.3362
1.9635

0.8929
0.9056 1.9918

8R21

n( RRli
1.0570 2.0354

PQ
PD

0.9916 2.020

1.7682

1.7725

1.7904

PCAP I.30x10

0.175x10
1.7262

0.198x10
1.6362

0.226x10
1.5969

0.277x10
2.0648

0.310x10
2.2546

0.333x10
2.3244

0.479x10
5.009
7.8568
2.5278

0.518x10
5.4482

0.538x10
6.2944

0.556x10
6.2469

PMAG2.3232
PT WS WH WI
WW
WC WMAG WT

4.4928
2.4186
0.2917

3.9589
2.4013
0.2571

3.9442
2.4007
0.2561

3.9829
2.4020 0.2586

4.5489
2.4204 0.2954

4.8259

4.9780
2.4343 0.3232

8.3979
2.5454 0.5453

9.30nn
2.5766 0.6078

9.3050

2.4;294
0.3133

2.5773
0.6101

0.5101

0.691x10 2 0.479x10
0.113x10

20.409x10- 2
0.757x10

0.302x10 2 0.249x10 2 0.148x10

0.518x10 0.136x10
0.108xlO

20.124x10 20.925x10
0.217x10
2.7644

0.843x10
3 0.603x10

0.799x10
0.554x10

0.573x10

0.554x10 3

0.834x10

3.445x1O

0.434x10
0.424xlO

0.179xlO 1 0.798x10

0.730x10

0.581x102 O.519x10 2 0.821x10

2.6747

0.489x102 U.470xj0
0.256x10
2.7502

0.4J2x12 0.422xl2 0
0.145x10
3.0437

2436xlO

0.182x10
2.7465

0.131x10
2.6794

0.117x10
2.6759

0.385x10
2.7249

0.135x10
3.0962

0.102x10
3.1898

2.989x10
3.1930

PQ PD PCAP PMAG PT WS WH WI

total power dissipation in the transistor power dissipation in the diode power dissipation in the output filter capacitor total magnetic loss (core loss + winding loss) total loss source weight packaging weight magnetic core weight

WC capacitor weight WW winding (copper conductor) weight WMAG WW + WI total weight. WT The difference in simulation results between the boost and buck-boost converter designs are summarized in the

following:

RAHMAN/LEE: COMPUTER SIMULATIONS OF OPTIMUM BOOST AND BUCK-BOOST CONVERTERS

605

10 '

PT

8.
F-

U)

10

U)6
cn
0

U) 8 U) 0

-J4

F(KHZ)

Fig. 7. Loss breakdown for optimal boost converter design.

WT
20K

40K

60K

F(KHZ)

80K

lOOK

120 K
3

Fig. 5. Loss breakdown for optimal buck-boost converter design.

2.5
'~-

Ws

cr
(9

2.0 _

3.5

WT

V.
(9

1.5 Z

"I

1.0
25

Ir
WH

05
<[ 2.0

WMAG

-i

|_1.5_

20K

40K

60K

80K

IOOK

120K

F(KHZ)

Fig. 8. Weight breakdown for optimal boost converter design.

4) Magnetic losses PMAG (core loss + winding loss) for the buck-boost converter are dominated by the 0.5 winding loss in low frequencies. The PMAG loss WMAG WC characteristic falls rapidly as the switching frequency inThe high magnetic losses in low frequencies creases. 120K 80K IOOK 60K 40K 20K cause severe weight penalty. It is clearly demonstrated in F(KHZ) 6 that in order to minimize the converter 5 and Figs. Fig. 6. Weight breakdown for optimal buck-boost converter design. weight/loss, it is desirable to operate the converter at 1) The buck-boost converter is heavier than the frequencies in the range of about 80 kHz to 100 kHz. boost converter. In order to have the minimum weight For the minimum weight/loss boost converter design, design the buck-boost converter has to operate at a however, the optimal frequency lies in the range of 40 kHz to 60 kHz as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. higher frequency than the boost power converter. 2) Switching losses of semiconductor devices are higher for the buck-boost converter. This is logical since VI. CONCLUSIONS the switching current amplitude is considerably higher Nonlinear programming techniques have been sucthan that of the boost converter due the same input and cessfully employed to generate computer simulations of output voltage and the same power level. minimum weight designs of switching power conthe con3) Magnetic components for the buck-boost For power converter optimization, the ALAG verters. in and heavier in size weight. verter are generally larger
WH

1-0

606

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS

VOL. AES-18, NO.5

SEPTEMBER 1982

package has been found to be quite effective in terms of the computation time, ease of coding, and rate of convergence. Adopting the ALAG routine, a cost effective computer-aided design approach is presented which provides a minimum-weight converter design down to the details of component level while meeting all powercircuit performance requirements. This computer-aided design approach provides important design insights which help to assess the following important design concerns:
1) tradeoffs between weight and loss as the switching frequency is increased 2) optimum converter design down to the details of component levels 3) optimum component designs as a function of the switching frequency and their relationships to the overall system optimization

4) significance of the U-shape curves representing total-weight and total-loss versus frequency are observed in Figs. 5 through 8; this allows the designer to easily identify the optimum switching frequency or a range of frequencies over which the total weight/loss is minimum in the practical sense 5) impact of various critical component characteristics (viz. magnetic losses and switching losses of semiconductor devices) on the overall system 6) optimal converter topology for a given application. Employing the nonlinear program based optimization technique, the power converter designer can conceive the overall optimum system design. This is done by taking into consideration the power-circuit related performance requirements with the design objective of either minimizing weight, loss, or any other physically realizable quantity. It thus sets the stage for a more scientific design approach instead of relying on subjective brute-force, trial and error, piecemeal design.

RAHMAN/LEE: COMPUTER SIMULATIONS OF OPTIMUM BOOST AND BUCK-BOOST CONVERTERS

607

REFERENCES
[1]
Wu, C.J., Lee, F.C., Balachandran, S., and Goin, H.L. (1980) Design optimization for half-bridge dc-dc converter. IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Record, 1980, Atlanta, Ga. Yu, Y., Lee, F.C., and Triner, J.E. (1979) Power converter design optimization. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, May 1979, AES-15, 344-355. Lee, F.C., Rahman, S., Wu, C.J., and Kolecki, J. (1981) A new approach to the minimum weight/loss design of switching power converters. Proceedings of POWERCON, Apr. 1981, Dallas, Tex. Rahman, S., and Lee, F.C. (1981) Nonlinear program based optimization of boost and buckboost converter designs. IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Record, 1981, 180-191.

[81

[2]

[91

[3]

[10]

[4]

[11]

[5]

Broyden, C.G. (1972)

[6]

[7]

Problems. New York: Academic Press, 1969, 143-164. Powell, M.J.D. (1969) A method for nonlinear constraints in minimization problems. In R. Fletcher (Ed.), Optimization. New York: Academic Press, 1969, 283-293.

timization. New York: Academic Press, 1972, 87-106. Hestenes, M.R. (1969) Multiplier and gradient methods. In Zadeh et al. (Eds.), Computing Methods in Optimization

Quasi-Newton methods. In W. Murray (Ed.), Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Op-

[12]

[13]

Haarhoff, P.C., and Buys, J.D. (1970) A new method for the optimization of a nonlinear function subject to nonlinear constraints. Computer Journal, May 1970, 13, 178-184. Rockafeller, R.T. (1973) A dual approach to solving nonlinear programming problems by unconstrained optimization. Mathematical Programming, 1973, 5, 354-373. Fletcher, R. (1974) Methods related to Lagrangian functions. In P.E. Gill and W. Murray (Eds.), Numerical Methodsfor Constrained Optimization. New York: Academic Press, 1974, 219-240. Balachandran, S., and Lee, F.C. (1981) Algorithm for power converter design optimization. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, May 1981, AES-17, 422432. Lee, F.C., Rahman, S., Carter, R.A., Wu, C.J., Yu, Y., and Chen, R. (1980) Modeling and analysis of power processing-phase III. Prepared by TRW Defense and Space Systems Groups and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, NASA Report, NASA CR-16558, NASA LeRC, Dec. 1980. Yu, Y., Buchmann, M., Lee, F.C., and Triner, J.E. (1976) Formulation of methodology for power circuit design optimization. IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Record, 1976.

Saifur Rahman (S'74-M'78) was born in Dacca, Bangladesh. He graduated from the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology in 1973 with a B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering. He obtained the M.S. degree in electrical sciences from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1975 and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1978. He has taught in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Texas A&M University, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, where he is currently an Assistant Professor. His industrial experience includes work at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Carolina Power and Light Company. His areas of interest are large scale optimization, power system analysis, and alternative energy systems. Dr. Rahman is a member of the American Section of the International Solar Energy Society.
Fred C.Y. Lee received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering in 1968 from ChengKung University, Taiwan, Republic of China, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering, both from Duke University, in 1971 and 1974, respectively. From 1974 to 1977, he was employed as a member of the technical staff of the Control and Power Processing Department, TRW Systems, where he was engaged in design, simulation, and analysis for spacecraft power processing equipment. In 1977 he joined the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering. He is presently an Associate Professor in that department. His research interests include power electronics, electric vehicle propulsion, nonlinear modeling and analysis, and design optimization of power processing components and systems. Dr. Lee has published over 60 articles in the areas of power processing modeling, analysis, and design.
608 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-18, NO.5

SEPTEMBER 1982