This application is related to commonly assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/295,580 filed on Nov. 14, 2002, by Kent Kernahan, David F. Fraser and Jack Roan, entitled “Switching Power Converter” which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Patent application Ser. No. 10/295,739, filed Nov. 14, 2002 by Kent Kernahan and John Carl Thomas entitled “Switching Power Converter”, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,825,644 issued Nov. 30, 2004 is also incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
This invention relates to switching power converters, the operations of which are computer controlled.
A digital switching power supply controller provides the ability to control a power supply through the use of algorithms executing logical decisions rather than by employing prior art techniques which use analog signals which are conditioned by various scale factors. In contrast to the prior art, the present invention relates to a method and circuitry for the regulation of the output voltage in a digital logic-based controller for a switching power supply.
Some products include a sleep, or low power, or standby mode. When a product is battery powered such modes are intended to extend battery life. Hence it is desirable to use a control method that is as efficient as possible. It is further desirable to provide a system and method for maintaining voltage regulation to relatively stable loads which maximizes supply efficiency. Another desirable advancement over the prior art is to provide a simple, low power method of battery energy management.
The present invention provides a control method which is applicable to a switching power converter and may be utilized with buck, boost and buck/boost topologies, any of which may be synchronous or non-synchronous.
In the method of the present invention, the magnitude of the output voltage of a switching power converter is sensed and compared to a predetermined lower limit voltage. No action is taken until the magnitude of the output voltage is equal to or less than the predetermined lower limit. If the magnitude of the output voltage is equal to or less than the predetermined lower limit, then corrective action is taken to cause the output voltage to increase to a magnitude which is greater than a target output voltage magnitude. The magnitude of the output voltage is monitored and no further corrective action is taken until the magnitude of the output voltage becomes equal to or less than the predetermined lower limit output voltage. The elapsed time between corrective action events is thus variable depending on, for example, the load being supplied by the switching power converter. This method is termed pulse frequency modulation control, or “PFM” control. In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, PFM control is utilized by a controller in a switching power converter. PFM control is described herein for topologies including synchronous buck, non-synchronous boost, and four-FET buck/boost. One skilled in the art will recognize that the PFM control is applicable to other topologies, such as non-synchronous buck and synchronous boost.
The present invention is particularly advantageous when used in a system in which the load is relatively small and stable. The strategy of the method is summarized as:
Referring to FIG. 12 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,825,464, according to one embodiment of the present invention, PFM control utilizes data from the ADC 1206 block and asserts control through the DPC 1201. The PFM control software resides within REG 1211 and interacts with SYS 1205. These functions are incorporated into the actions which are ascribed to the controller 112,
Referring to
The PFM control method is illustrated by
The method of the present invention is represented by the flow chart of
The PFM control method may be applied to various topologies. In each case there are alternative implementation strategies which may be selected, depending upon the end product's tolerance for ripple, computing power available, power budget and other factors. Three PFM control embodiments include: a) PFM control using a stored set of pre-calculated Tp and Ts pulse times, from which the pulse times are selected depending on input variables (“Method_1”); b) PFM control based on calculation of Tp and Ts each time corrective action is to be initiated using the present input variables and pre-stored system model parameters (“Method_2”); and c) PFM control based on calculation of Tp and Ts each time corrective action is to be initiated using the present input variables and an estimation of system model parameters, calculated as a function of system response (“Method_3”)
However, considering that the inductor L1 current starts at zero and returns to zero, this provides:
Expanding the equation, results in:
The peak coil current ΔI 400 is:
Therefore, using the relationship previously obtained:
Finally, we have:
For the topology of
ΔV=Vdbh−Vdbl
V1=Vin−Vout=Vin−Vtar
V2=Vout=Vtar
Therefore, combining EQ—1 and EQ—2, and solving for Tp and Ts provides:
GB1 is the time guard-band between the end of the conduction control signal provided to FET 114, and the beginning of the conduction control signal provided to FET 116, and GB2 is the guard-band between the end of the conduction control signal provided to FET 116 and the beginning of the next conduction control pulse to be provided to FET 114. It is of course desirable to avoid overlapping conduction of the control FET 114 and the synchronizing FET 116. Guard band length is a function of the turn on and off times of the FETs used for FET 114 and FET 116 in the target system, as determined from their data sheet specifications.
In some designs, a single conduction control signal of length Tp could cause the maximum cur-rent in the associated inductor to exceed a maximum acceptable, such as the maximum current rating of the inductor. The associated inductor may have, for example, been selected for a small physical size or other requirements of the design.
Control Method_1, is accomplished by using EQ—3 and EQ—4 to build a lookup table in which the PFM control utilizes at each activation, the input to the table being Vin. Vo is known to be Vdbl 202 at the time of activation. An example of such a table of values for Tp is shown in
In the embodiment of Method_2, Tp and Ts are calculated by PFM at each activation, again using EQ—3 and EQ—4. To speed up the calculation, a second order inverse polynomial approximation (a/(1+b*VIN+c*VIN2)) can be used. In this example the constants a, b, and c have been calculated using a Taylor Series to be:
a=6.658E-07
b=0.5349
c=0.0039
The results of this Method_2 are shown in
Method_1 and Method_2 (actually, EQ_3 and EQ_4) ignore the effects of parasitic resistance in the physical circuit of the target application, which effects may amount to as much as a ΔV error of twenty percent. Parasitic resistance reduces the voltage across inductor L1 during Tp while increasing the negative voltage across inductor L1 during Ts. This results in the conduction permitted by the conduction control signals yielding less charge than expected using the calculations above. To appreciate these effects, reference is made to
However, considering that the inductor L1 current starts at zero and returns to zero yields:
Assuming that input and output voltages do not change significantly over Tp and Ts results in:
V1=Vin−Vout−Rp·I
and
V2=Vout+Rs·I
where Rp is the parasitic resistance in the current path during Tp and Rs is the parasitic resistance in the current path during Ts. Solving the integral provides:
However, assuming that:
Which yields:
Finally,
Repeating the same derivation for the second slope of the inductor L1 current (during Ts time) provides:
From EQ—5 and EQ—6, the relationship between Tp and Ts is derived, specifically:
Ignoring second order effects:
Therefore:
The total charge transferred to the output is found by
Now, assuming that R=Rp≅Rs and that Tp will only be adjusted over a narrow region (Tp(min)≦Tp≦Tp(max)) or
The above provides:
Combining EQ—7, EQ—8, and EQ—9 gives:
Using the same name conventions as before, Tp and Ts can be solved by
Equations EQ—10, EQ—11, and EQ—12 represent an embodiment of PFM Method_3, which is basically Method_2 with the refinement of adjustment for parasitics. However Method_3 utilizes static component values estimated by the designer.
The precise value of model parameters cannot be known in advance, causing significant variance. That is especially true for the values of L and C. They might vary as much 20% each, for a potential combined variation of 40% from assumed values.
A more accurate embodiment of Method_3 compares the actual variation of the output voltage (ΔVactual), the amount by which Vo changed as the result of one pulse, in relation to the deployed pulse width of the conduction control signal applied to the control FET 114, deriving the effective value of the L and C per:
From this it will be appreciated that the specific values for L and C are not needed, only the product LC. The parameter √{square root over (2·L·C)} is estimated by measuring Vo after each pulse deployed and updating the model (EQ—10). In other embodiments, EQ—10 is slowly adapted using a rolling average technique, or periodically adjusted per a time schedule or other scheme. This approach adjusts for actual component values, including the effect of temperature during operation and longer term changes due to component aging.
In another embodiment, the PFM control method is utilized with a non-synchronous boost converter, such as shown in
The width of the pulse of current (Tp+Ts) is calculated using the method of the present invention (PFM), and can be implemented in any of the following ways: a) PFM control using a stored set of pre-calculated pulses, from which it selects depending on its input variables; b) PFM control based on a calculation of a duration for Tp and Ts each time corrective action is to be initiated using the present input variables and pre-stored system model parameters; and c) PFM control based on calculation of Tp and Ts each time corrective action is to be initiated using present input variables and an estimation of system model parameters, calculated as a function of system response. The first embodiment is presented; one skilled in the art will understand other embodiments similar to those previously discussed as Method_2 and Method_3.
Vin is assumed to be within a restricted range of voltages: Vin(min)≦Vin≦Vin(max). Looking to
However, considering that the current in inductor L2 starts at 0 and returns to 0, this provides:
where V1 is the voltage across the inductor L2 during time Tp and V2 is the voltage across the inductor L2 during time Ts.
The peak current in inductor L2 (ΔI) is:
Therefore, using the relationship previously obtained:
For the implementation of
ΔV=Vdbh−Vdbl,
V1=Vin,
and
V2=Vout+VD−Vin=Vtar+VD−Vin,
where VD is the drop across diode 808. Thus Tp, the only control parameter for a non-synchronous implementation, can be calculated as
In another embodiment of the present invention PFM control is used to regulate a multiple transistor buck/boost power converter, such as that in
The controller 900, using times calculated by the PFM control methods, injects pulses of current into inductor L3, by closing switches Q4 and Q6, for a length of time Tp; and thereafter opening them, letting the coil current flow thru MOSFETs Q5, and Q7 for a length of time Ts. MOSFETs Q5 and Q7 may be replaced with diodes.
Looking again to
However, considering that the inductor L3 current starts at zero and returns to zero, this provides:
Assuming that input and output voltages do not change significantly over Tp and Ts, results in:
V1=Vin−Rp·I
V2=Vout+Rs·I
Where:
Rp is the parasitic resistance in the current path during Tp and Rs is the parasitic resistance in the current path during Ts.
Solving the integral, provides:
However, assuming that:
Repeating the same reasoning for the slope of the inductor L3 current during the Ts time we have:
From EQ—13 and EQ—14, the relationship between Tp and Ts is:
Ignoring second order effects:
Therefore,
The total charge transferred to the output is:
Now, assuming the following conditions:
R=Rp≅Rs,
and
(Tp(min)≦Tp≦Tp(max))
will only be adjusted over a narrow region, given as
yields:
Combining EQ—15, EQ—16 and EQ—17 yields:
Then, using the same name conventions used above in Method 1, the solution for the circuit of
A further benefit of the PFM control method is the ability to make use of the information used in PFM control to derive an estimate of the current delivered to the power converter. For a battery-powered device this is useful in “fuel gauging”, i.e., keeping track of how much energy remains in a one or more batteries used for power.
The method used is to accumulate voltage changes. A count (PR) is kept of how many pulses get deployed per second. The amount of charge in each pulse is
ΔQ=C·ΔVactual=C·(Vdbh−Vdbl).
Therefore an estimate of the load current is given by
Iload=PR·ΔQ=PR·C·(Vdbh−Vdbl).
For the circuit of
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4349703 | Chea, Jr. | Sep 1982 | A |
5694029 | Hayes et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5731694 | Wilcox et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5801518 | Ozaki et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5880947 | Imanaka et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5945820 | Namgoong et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
6057675 | Tateishi | May 2000 | A |
6058030 | Hawkes et al. | May 2000 | A |
6149532 | Kim | Nov 2000 | A |
6154015 | Ichiba | Nov 2000 | A |
6166527 | Dwelley et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6181123 | Jou et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6188252 | Kawakami | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6400127 | Giannopoulos | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6448746 | Carlson | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6456049 | Tsuji | Sep 2002 | B2 |
RE38140 | Schaffer | Jun 2003 | E |
6713994 | Inaba | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6940189 | Gizara | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6954054 | Brown | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6977488 | Nogawa et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7012412 | Kanamori et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7098640 | Brown | Aug 2006 | B2 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 0026740 | May 2000 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060145678 A1 | Jul 2006 | US |