1. Technical Field
The present disclosure concerns in general resonant switching converters circuits and in particular a control method of a resonant dc-dc converter aimed to optimize conversion efficiency (i.e., the ratio between the power provided to the load and that drawn from the input source) at low load, and a circuital implementation thereof, preferably realized in integrated form.
2. Description of the Related Art
Resonant converters represent a broad class of switching converters and include a resonant circuit playing an active role in determining the input-output power flow. In these converters, a bridge (half-bridge) consisting of four (or two) power switches (typically power MOSFETs) supplied by a dc voltage generates a square voltage wave that is applied to a resonant circuit (also termed resonant tank) tuned to a frequency close to the fundamental frequency of the square wave. Because of its selective response, the resonant circuit mainly responds to the fundamental component and negligibly to the higher order harmonics of the square wave. As a result, the circulating power may be modulated by varying the frequency of the square wave, holding the duty cycle constant at 50%. Moreover, depending on the resonant circuit configuration, the currents and/or voltages associated with the power flow have a sinusoidal or piecewise sinusoidal shape.
These voltages and/or currents are rectified and filtered so as to provide DC power to the load. In offline applications (i.e., those operated from the power line), the rectification and filtering system supplying the load is coupled to the resonant tank circuit by means of a transformer providing galvanic isolation between the source and the load, to comply with safety regulations. As in every isolated dc-dc converters, also in this case a distinction is made between a primary side (as related to the primary winding of the transformer) connected to the input source and a secondary side (as related to the secondary winding(s) of the transformer) providing power to the load through the rectification and filtering system.
As an example of resonant converter,
The resonant converter comprises a “totem-pole” of transistors M1 and M2 connected between the input voltage source node Vin and ground GND, controlled by a control circuit. The common terminal HB between the transistors M1 and M2 is connected to a resonant tank comprising a series of a capacitor Cr, an inductance Ls and another inductance Lp connected in parallel to a transformer with a center-tap secondary winding. The two windings of the center-tap secondary are connected to the anodes of two diodes D1 and D2, whose cathodes are both connected to the parallel of a capacitor Cout and a resistance Rout; the output voltage Vout of the resonant converter is across said parallel while the DC output current Iout flows through Rout.
Resonant converters offer considerable advantages as compared to traditional switching converters (which are not resonant, but typically PWM—Pulse Width Modulation—controlled): waveforms without steep edges, low switching losses in the power switches due to their soft-switching operation, high conversion efficiency (>95% is easily reachable), ability to operate at high frequencies, low EMI generation (Electro-Magnetic Interference). All these features make resonant converters ideal candidates when high power density is to be achieved, that is, when conversion systems capable of handling considerable power levels in a relatively small space are preferred.
As in most DC-DC converters, the output voltage is kept constant against changes in the operating conditions (i.e., the input voltage Vin and the output current Iout) through a control system that uses closed-loop negative feedback. As shown in the block diagram of
In resonant converters, as mentioned earlier, this significant quantity is the switching frequency of the square wave stimulating the resonant tank (X=ƒsw). In nearly all practical resonant converters, if frequency rises the delivered power decreases and vice versa.
A consideration common to many applications of switching converters, resonant and not, is that conversion efficiency is maximized also under light load conditions to comply with regulations and recommendations on energy saving (e.g., EnergyStar, CEC, Eu CoC, Climate Savers, etc.).
A popular technique for optimizing light load efficiency in all switching converters (resonant and not) is to make them work in the so-called “burst-mode”. With this operating mode the converter works intermittently, with series (bursts) of switching cycles separated by time intervals during which the converter does not switch (idle time). When the load is such that the converter has just entered burst-mode operation, the idle time is short; as the load decreases, the duration of the bursts decreases as well and the idle time increases. In this way, the average switching frequency is considerably reduced and, consequently, so is the effect of the two major contributors to power losses at light load:
1) switching losses associated to the parasitic elements in the converter
2) conduction losses related to the flow of reactive current in the resonant tank (e.g., the magnetizing current in the transformer). In fact, this current only flows while the converter is switching and is essentially zero during the idle time.
The duration of the bursts and the idle time are determined by the feedback loop so that the output voltage of the converter always remains under control. To explain the mechanism governing this operation it is convenient to refer to a concrete example.
The CCO is programmed by means of the capacitor C1 connected from pin CF to ground and by the current IR sourced by the pin RFmin, which provides an accurate reference voltage Vr (=2 V). IR is internally mirrored and a current KM·IR is alternately sourced and sunk from pin CF, originating a symmetrical triangular waveform included between a peak value (=3.9 V) and a valley value (=0.9 V) across C1. As a result, the higher the current IR, the faster C1 is charged and discharged and the higher the oscillation and switching frequency (ƒosc). Denoting with ΔVosc, the peak-to-valley swing of the oscillator (=3 V), the following relationship can be found:
The current IR is the sum of the current flowing through R1 (=Vr/R1) and the current IFB sunk by the phototransistor of the optocoupler OC that transfers the control voltage Vc across the isolation boundary. Therefore, the current IFB actually modulates IR, closing the feedback loop that regulates the output voltage of the converter and making it work at a frequency given by:
Note that this is done consistently with the relationship that links the delivered power to frequency in the resonant converter and the configuration of the feedback circuit. In fact, when the load demands less power, the output voltage tends to increase; the feedback loop reacts by reducing the control voltage Vc, which increases the OC current IFB, and, therefore, the switching frequency as well, thus reducing the delivered power and counteracting the output voltage rise.
The timing components R1, R2 and C1 define the oscillation frequency range of the CCO. In particular, R1 sets the minimum operating frequency, which occurs when the current IFB is zero:
R2 along with R1 sets the maximum operating frequency, that is, the frequency at which the device enters burst-mode operation, in which the device operates in short bursts, separated by idle periods. In fact, when IFB is such that the voltage on pin STBY, VSTBY, is lower than the threshold voltage Vth, the output of the comparator CO1 goes high and inhibits the oscillator and the pulse-train generator, causing both switches M1 and M2 to stay off. This frequency is given by:
Therefore, there is a discontinuity in the ƒosc vs. IFB relationship, so that its complete expression is:
With the aid of
When the load decreases (and the switching frequency rises) to the point that VSTBY falls below the threshold Vth, the converter stops switching and the idle time begins. Since no more energy is delivered during the idle time, the load is supplied only by the filtering system (normally, the output capacitor bank Cout shown in
Note that the oscillator frequency at the beginning of a burst, ƒosc.bb, is slightly lower than ƒosc.max, in fact:
The performance of the above illustrated technique is rather good and the benefit in terms of efficiency improvement significant. However, the efficiency targets set by the upcoming regulations and recommendations concerning energy saving are becoming more and more demanding and it is tough to meet them even with resonant converters and their present day burst-mode control techniques. As a matter of fact, substantially all the control devices for resonant converters commercially available have a burst-mode operation that, apart from some minor details not concerning efficiency optimization, works in the way illustrated above.
There is a demand for a new and more efficient burst-mode technique that would make easier to meet these new challenging targets. Many studies on this topic are ongoing, a review of which is provided by the appended list of references.
In [1], a new technique is proposed where the “burst duty cycle”, intended as the ratio of the duration of a burst to their repetition period, is changed depending on the output current Iout, while the switching frequency is kept constant within each burst. This technique cannot be easily used in systems where the control device is located on the primary side because the information coming from the output current sensing circuit has to cross the isolation boundary. Additionally, in [1] the usage of an MCU is proposed, which limits the applicability of the method to high-end systems where cost is not a prime concern.
In [2] a hysteretic (in the end, synonymous with burst-mode) control scheme is proposed where the converter always operates at the resonance frequency of the resonant tank and the low-side MOSFET M2 is kept always on during the idle time. This technique is simple but has the drawback of depleting the energy in the resonant tank completely. When a burst starts, the energetic state of the resonant tank has to be restored, similarly to a start-up condition but without high frequency operation that limits circulating currents. Big currents, large output voltage ripple and audible noise are expected.
In [3] a novel LLC burst mode control with a constant duration of the bursts and optimal switching pattern is proposed. The duration of bursts is constant, while the idle time is modulated by load conditions. In each burst, a three pulse switching pattern is implemented to keep output voltage low frequency ripple at a minimum. Also in this case the usage of an MCU is proposed, which brings the same limitations mentioned earlier.
In [4] a method is proposed in which the converter operates below the resonance frequency of the resonant tank during burst-mode, which seems to be quite a design limitation.
According to an embodiment described in the present disclosure a new and more efficient burst-mode technique is provided, as compared to those discussed above, that, on one hand, provides a substantially improved efficiency with limited drawbacks in terms of output voltage ripple increase and audible noise, and, on the other hand, lends itself to a relatively simple and low-cost circuit implementation.
According to another embodiment, a circuital implementation of the new and more efficient burst-mode method is disclosed, preferably to be realized in integrated form on a silicon chip. According to a further embodiment, a control device for resonant converters is disclosed, embedding the aforesaid circuit and a resonant converter controlled by the control device.
According to an embodiment, a method for controlling operation of a resonant converter is provided, including controlling a switching frequency of the converter, and thereby its power output, in direct relation to a feedback current, shifting the converter to an idle condition when the feedback current exceeds a first threshold, and introducing a nonlinearity into the relation of the switching frequency and the feedback current when the current exceeds a second threshold, lower than the first threshold.
According to another embodiment, a device for controlling a resonant converter is provided, that includes a current controlled oscillator having an input configured to receive a feedback control current from the controller and an output configured to provide a switching control signal for the converter, at a frequency that is related to a value of the feedback control signal current. The device also includes a burst mode control circuit configured to introduce a nonlinearity into the relation of the switching control signal frequency and the feedback control signal current while the control signal current is greater than a first threshold, and to shift the current controlled oscillator to an idle condition while the feedback control signal current is greater than a second threshold, higher than the first threshold.
According to an embodiment, the burst mode control circuit is configured the prevent the frequency of the switching control signal from increasing while the feedback control signal current is greater than the first threshold.
As mentioned earlier, the effectiveness of burst-mode operation in increasing light load efficiency stems from the reduction of the average switching frequency, which leads to a reduction of the switching losses associated to the parasitic elements in the converter and of the conduction losses associated to the reactive currents flowing in the resonant tank.
Therefore, to optimize efficiency during burst-mode operation, the power demanded by the load should be provided while minimizing the average switching frequency or, in other words, the number of switching cycles the converter performs per second. This can be achieved by maximizing the energy carried by the converter in each cycle, so as to reduce the number of cycles over time.
Since in a resonant converter the power it delivers increases when the switching frequency is reduced, the energy per cycle will increase if during burst-mode the converter is forced to switch at a lower frequency. Therefore, with reference to the schematic in
When increasing the energy-per-cycle level in burst-mode, this can produce an increase of the ripple in the output voltage. A trade-off can be employed to increase the energy-per-cycle without unduly increasing the ripple.
An assumption that is done in the following discussion is that the current level IFB.bb=(Vr−Vth−VH)/R2 (refer to eq. (2)) at which the converter resumes switching is always ≧IFB.a.
In the following discussion some practical implementations of the nonlinearities of
Of course, similar types of functionality can be realized starting from different oscillator structures, with appropriate modifications that, in view of present disclosure, will be obvious to the skilled artisan.
The circuit shown in
The burst mode control circuit 12A includes a second clamp circuit 20 including an op-amp OA2 and a transistor Q8 coupled by another input pin STBY to the optocoupler OC; a current mirror 22 including transistors Q9, Q10; a current mirror 24 including transistors Q11, Q12; and a reference current source providing a reference current Iref.
As long as IFB<IFB.a (i.e., VSTBY>Vth), where IFB.a=(Vr−Vth)/R2, it is IR2=IFB and IS=0. When IFB equals IFB.a (i.e., when VSTBY=Vth), a second precision clamp circuit 20 made up of the op-amp OA2 and transistor Q8 is activated and prevents VSTBY from further decreasing. Therefore, as the optocoupler OC sinks a current IFB>IFB.a the current through R2 remains fixed at IFB.a, and the oscillator frequency at ƒosc(IFB.a). The extra current IS=IFB−IFB.a is provided by the clamp circuit 20, in particular by Q8. This current is mirrored by transistors Q9, Q10 and compared to the reference current Iref mirrored by transistors Q11, Q12. As long as IS<Iref the collector of Q11 is substantially at Vcesat and the output of the comparator CO1 is low. When IS becomes larger than Iref, the Vce of Q11 goes up and as it exceeds Vth1 the output of CO1 goes high and inhibits the oscillator through the switch SW and the pulse-train generator 13. Note, incidentally, that IFB.b=IFB.a+Iref. Note also that the CCO is exactly the same as that shown in
The circuit shown in
It works substantially in the same way as the circuit in
IFB.a and IFB.b are the same as in the previous circuit. For simplicity, the mirrors 32, 34 work with a 1:1 mirroring ratio; with a different mirroring ratio it is possible to change the slope of the ƒosc(IFB) characteristic in the region (IFB.a, IFB.b).
The circuit of
As VSTBY=Vth1 and the output of CO4 goes low, the resulting drop ΔVr=Vr−Vrr in the reference voltage for OA1 determines the same drop ΔVr in the voltage appearing on the pin RFmin. As a consequence, also VSTBY will drop by ΔVr since IFB is unchanged. If ΔVr≧Vth1−Vth, VSTBY will immediately fall below Vth, which asserts the output of CO1 high, thus inhibiting the oscillator through the switch SW, and the pulse-train generator. In this case it is substantially IFB.a=IFB.b=(Vr−Vth1)/R2. If, instead ΔVr<Vth1−Vth, the frequency drop resulting from ΔVr voltage, equal to:
will force the feedback loop to react by increasing IFB to compensate for the sudden increase of energy delivery, so VSTBY will quickly fall below Vth(<Vth1), thus triggering the same series of events as in the previous case. Note that the change ΔVr does not modify the slope of the ƒosc(IFB) relationship.
In this case it is IFB.a=(Vr−Vth1)/R2, IFB.b=(Vr−Vth)/R2.
The circuit in
As long as IFB<IFB.a (i.e., VSTBY>Vth1), the output of comparator CO4 is high, Q21 is on and the mirror 36 is disabled; the current flowing through the chain of mirrors 14, 16, 28 is IR and the charge/discharge current for C1 is KM·IR. As VSTBY=Vth1 the output of CO4 goes low, Q21 is switched off and the mirror 36 is activated; the current flowing through the chain of mirrors 14, 16, 28 jumps from IR to (1−k1)IR and the charge/discharge current for C1 to KM·(1−k1)IR.
The resulting frequency decrease will force the feedback loop to react by increasing IFB to compensate for the sudden increase of energy delivery, so VSTBY will quickly fall below Vth (<Vth1), will assert the output of CO1 high, thus inhibiting the oscillator through the switch SW and the pulse-train generator 13.
Also in this circuit it is IFB.a=(Vr−Vth1)/R2, IFB.b=(Vr−Vth)/R2.
The circuit in
As long as VSTBY>Vth1, the output of comparator CO4 is low, Q24 and Q25 are off, thus Q22 and Q23 deliver their collector current to the mirror Q5, Q6 via diode D1 and to capacitor C1 via diode D2, respectively. Therefore, the charge/discharge current for C1 is KM·IR. As VSTBY=Vth1 the output of CO4 goes high, Q24 and Q25 are turned on, thus the collector current k1IR of both Q22 and Q23 is diverted to ground. The diodes D1 and D2 isolate Q24 and Q25 so that the oscillator operation is unaffected except for the charge/discharge current for C1 that jumps to KM·(1−k1)IR.
Also in this case, the resulting frequency decrease forces the feedback loop to react by increasing IFB to compensate for the sudden increase of energy delivery, so VSTBY quickly falls below Vth (<Vth1), which asserts the output of comparator CO1 high, thus inhibiting the oscillator through the switch SW and the pulse-train generator 13.
IFB.a and IFB.b are the same as in the previous circuit.
The circuit in
The burst mode control circuit 12F is the same as the burst mode control circuit 12B of
As long as VSTBY>Vth1, the output of CO4 is high and the oscillator swing is ΔVosc=3.9−VV1. As VSTBY=Vth1 and the output of CO4 goes low, the peak-to-valley swing ΔVosc will increase by the difference VV1−VV2, thus originating a step reduction both in ƒosc(IFB) and in the slope of ƒosc(IFB) (refer to eq. 1), like the first two exemplary circuits. This frequency drop will force the feedback loop to react by increasing IFB to compensate for the sudden increase of energy delivery, so VSTBY will quickly fall below Vth (<Vth1), the output of CO1 will be asserted high, thus inhibiting the oscillator through the switch SW, and the pulse-train generator.
IFB.a and IFB.b are still the same.
Obviously, the very same functionality can be obtained by changing the reference voltage for comparator CO3 from a first value Vp1 (=3.9 V) to a second value Vp2>Vp1.
It is worth noticing that the nonlinearity “E” can be thought as the combination of nonlinearity “D” and nonlinearity “A”. As such, one embodiment of its implementation can be the combination of the circuit in
As long as IFB<IFB.a (i.e., VSTBY>Vth), where IFB.a=(Vr−Vth1)/R2, it is IR2=IFB and IS=0. The output of CO4 is high, Q21 is on and the mirror 36 is off; the current flowing through the chain of mirrors 16, 26, 28 is IR and the charge/discharge current for C1 is KM·IR. As VSTBY=Vth1 the output of CO4 goes low, Q21 is switched off and the mirror 36 is activated; the current flowing through the chain of mirrors 16, 26, 28 jumps from IR to (1−k1)IR and the charge/discharge current for C1 to KM·(1−k1)IR.
The resulting frequency decrease will force the feedback loop to react by increasing IFB to compensate for the sudden increase of energy delivery, so VSTBY will quickly fall and reach Vth (<Vth1). The precision clamp made up of the op-amp OA2 and Q8 is activated and prevents VSTBY from further decreasing. Therefore, as the optocoupler sinks a current IFB>(Vr−Vth)/R2, IR2 is constant, and so is the oscillator frequency. The extra current IS is provided by Q8. This current is mirrored by current mirror 22 and compared to the reference current Iref mirrored by mirror 24. As long as IS<Iref the collector of Q11 is substantially at Vcesat and the output of the comparator CO1 is low. When IS becomes larger than Iref, the Vce of Q11 goes up and as it exceeds Vth2 the output of CO1 goes high and inhibits the oscillator through the switch SW and the pulse-train generator 13.
In this circuit it is: IFB.a=(Vr−Vth1)/R2, IFB.b=(Vr−Vth)/R2+Iref.
According to an alternative embodiment, the implementation of nonlinearity “E” can be the combination of the circuit in
As long as IFB<IFB.a (i.e., VSTBY>Vth), where IFB.a=(Vr−Vth1)/R2, it is IR2=IFB and IS=0. The output of CO4 is low, Q24 and Q25 are off, thus Q22 and Q23 deliver their collector currents to the mirror Q5, Q6 via D1 and to C1 via D2, respectively. Therefore, the charge/discharge current for C1 is KM·IR. As VSTBY=Vth1 the output of CO4 goes high, Q24, Q25 are turned on, thus the collector current k1IR of both Q22 and Q23 is diverted to ground. The diodes D1 and D2 isolate Q24 and Q25 so that the oscillator operation is unaffected except for the charge/discharge current for C1 that jumps to KM·(1−k1)IR.
Again, the resulting frequency decrease will force the feedback loop to react by increasing IFB to compensate for the sudden increase of energy delivery, so VSTBY will quickly fall down to Vth (<Vth1). The precision clamp made up of the op-amp OA2 and Q8 is activated and prevents VSTBY from further decreasing. Therefore, as the optocoupler sinks a current IFB>(Vr−Vth)/R2, IR2 is constant, and so is the oscillator frequency. The extra current IS is provided by Q8. This current is mirrored by Q13, Q14 and compared to the reference current Iref mirrored by Q9, Q10. As long as IS<Iref the collector of Q11 is substantially at Vcesat and the output of the comparator CO1 is low. When IS becomes larger than Iref, the Vce of Q11 goes up and as it exceeds Vth2 the output of CO1 goes high and inhibits the oscillator through the switch SW and the pulse-train generator 13.
In this circuit it is: IFB.a=(Vr−Vth1)/R2, IFB.b=(Vr−Vth)/R2+Iref.
Finally, according to an embodiment, the implementation of nonlinearity “E” can be the combination of the circuit in
As long as IFB<IFB.a (i.e., VSTBY>Vth), where IFB.a=(Vr−Vth1)/R2, it is IR2=IFB and IS=0. The output of CO4 is high and the single-pole double-throw switch SPDT connects the non-inverting input to VV1>VV2, so that the oscillator swing is ΔVosc=3.9−VV1. As VSTBY=Vth1 and the output of CO4 goes low and the swing ΔVosc increases by the difference VV1−VV2, thus originating a step reduction in ƒosc(IFB).
Once more, the resulting frequency decrease will force the feedback loop to react by increasing IFB to compensate for the sudden increase of energy delivery, so VSTBY will quickly fall down to Vth (<Vth1), thus triggering the same series of events as in the previous cases.
Among the five nonlinearities considered so far, the nonlinearity “A” has the advantage of leaving the CCO unchanged but appears to be the least effective since it exercises just a mild clamping action on the oscillator frequency. Additionally, it has the least flexibility: it is just a fixed change of slope to zero. All the others appear to be more effective because they exercise a stronger action on the oscillator frequency (they actually reverse the feedback from negative to positive) and the intensity of their action can be adjusted by changing either the mirroring ratios or the switched reference voltages.
The nonlinearity “C” has also the advantage of keeping the CCO unchanged but introduces a fixed jump in the oscillator frequency proportional to the minimum switching frequency ƒosc.min=fosc(0) (refer to equations 1 and 3) and not to the switching frequency in the discontinuity point ƒosc(IFB.a). This means that, depending on the frequency range, this discontinuity could be too large in some cases or too small in others. Programming the amplitude of the discontinuity with an external circuit could be a solution but would employ an additional dedicated pin, which might not be available. The discontinuity “C”, therefore, will not be considered for integration.
The simplest implementation seems to be that of the nonlinearity “D”, in particular the circuit in
To evaluate the effectiveness in terms of light load efficiency improvement an experiment has been realized using an external circuit to simulate that kind of nonlinearity. To this purpose, the circuit of
The circuit is composed of a current generator (R3, R4, D4, Q26) that sources about 20 μA when the base of Q26 is pulled low via R5 by the output of one of the comparators included in the LM393. This comparator receives on its inverting input a reference voltage generated by the shunt regulator TL431 and the adjustment circuit composed of R6, R9 and the potentiometer R8. The non-inverting input is connected to STBY through R7 that, in combination with R10 provides the comparator with a small hysteresis. R8 has been tuned to the values of Vth, and the hysteresis VH of CO1 in the L6599, to properly set the position of IFB.a at (Vr−Vth−VH)/R4.
When transistor Q26 is turned on, the current IR has a sudden 20 μA negative step change. 20 μA is about 10% of IR when IFB=IFB.a. This causes an equal change in the charge/discharge current of C1 (in the L6599, KM=1) and, therefore, a proportional reduction in the switching frequency, which triggers the above described reversal of the feedback sign and pushes VSTBY below Vth.
It is worth noticing that this circuit implements the nonlinearity “C” and not the nonlinearity “D”. In fact, the circuit of
The results of the bench evaluation of the experimental converter are summarized in the graph of
One skilled in the art will recognize that corresponding voltage-controlled oscillators could be used in place of the current-controlled oscillators discussed above.
The various embodiments described above can be combined to provide further embodiments. These and other changes can be made to the embodiments in light of the above-detailed description. In general, in the following claims, the terms used should not be construed to limit the claims to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification and the claims, but should be construed to include all possible embodiments along with the full scope of equivalents to which such claims are entitled. Accordingly, the claims are not limited by the disclosure.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
MI2012A1231 | Jul 2012 | IT | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6292376 | Kato | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6724174 | Esteves et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
7394669 | Fahlenkamp et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
20030231012 | Corva et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20060044845 | Fahlenkamp et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20080030178 | Leonard et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080037289 | Yang | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080062725 | Yang | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080298095 | Chuang et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090153124 | Ishii | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090201705 | Murata et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090213626 | Yang | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090219000 | Yang | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090244934 | Wang et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090284994 | Lin et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100008110 | Huang et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100039836 | Gong et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20110051470 | Li et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110085354 | Wang et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110085355 | Adragna | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110157920 | Adragna et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110157926 | Adragna | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110157927 | Adragna et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110176335 | Li et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110204866 | Moon et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120069608 | Yang et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120081084 | Yang et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120099344 | Adragna | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120201055 | Moon et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120230064 | Yang et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120250360 | Orr et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130010503 | Choi | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130128623 | Hosotani | May 2013 | A1 |
20130134894 | Kuang | May 2013 | A1 |
20130229829 | Zhang et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130258722 | Wang et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140043002 | Chung et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140307478 | Leisten | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140369097 | Prescott et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
L6599, “High-Voltage Resonant Controller,” XP-002525804, www.st.com, May 2006, 36 pgs. |
Liu, Y., “High Efficiency Optimization of LLC Resonant Converter for Wide Load Range,” Thesis submitted to faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dec. 4, 2007, 119 pgs. |
Feng, W. et al., “LLC Resonant Converter Burst Mode Control with Constant Burst Time and Optimal Switching Pattern,” Twenty-Sixth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), Fort Worth, TX, pp. 6-12, Mar. 6-11, 2011. |
Qin, J. et al., “Light Load Efficiency Enhancement of a LLC Resonant Converter,” Twenty-Sixth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), Fort Worth, TX, pp. 1764-1768, Mar. 6-11, 2011. |
Wang, B. et al., “Analysis and Implementation of LLC Burst Mode for Light Load Efficiency Improvement,” Twenty-Fourth Annual Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), Washington, DC, pp. 58-64, Feb. 15-19, 2009. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140016362 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |