See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224077593

Current sharing in three-phase LLC interleaved

resonant converter

Conference Paper October 2009

DOI: 10.1109/ECCE.2009.5316510 Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

21 501

5 authors, including:

Enrico Orietti P. Mattavelli

Infineon Technologies University of Padova
18 PUBLICATIONS 167 CITATIONS 389 PUBLICATIONS 8,319 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Claudio Adragna G. Gattavari

STMicroelectronics STMicroelectronics
26 PUBLICATIONS 226 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 112 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Claudio Adragna on 04 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Current Sharing in Three-Phase LLC Interleaved Resonant Converter

Enrico Orietti Paolo Mattavelli Giorgio Spiazzi

Member, IEEE Member, IEEE Member, IEEE
University of Padova - DEI University of Padova - DTG University of Padova - DEI
Via Gradenigo 6/b Stradella S. Nicola, 3 Via Gradenigo, 6/b
35131, Padova, Italy 36100, Vicenza, Italy 35131, Padova , Italy
enrico.orietti@ieee.org paolo.mattavelli@unipd.it spiazzi@dei.unipd.it

Claudio Adragna Giuseppe Gattavari

ST Microelectronics ST Microelectronics
Via C. Olivetti Via C. Olivetti
20041, Agrate Brianza (MI), Italy 20041, Agrate Brianza (MI), Italy
claudio.adragna@st.com giuseppe.gattavari@st.com

Abstract -- In this paper, a novel approach for multi-phase
interleaved LLC resonant converter is presented. The proposed
solution, based on the use of three LLC modules with star
connection of transformer primary windings, allows a drastic
reduction of the output current ripple and consequently of the
output filter capacitor size. Differently from other multi-phase
solutions, that are greatly susceptible to resonant
components tolerance causing current imbalance, the proposed
topology exhibits an inherent current sharing capability.
Moreover, a closed-loop phase-shift control is introduced to
additionally compensate for current mismatch and completely
balance the current supplied by each module. The benefit of
such solution on the reduction of output current ripple and the
phase-shift control interaction and effect on load-step variations
are also investigated. Measurements on a prototype are added to
simulations as validation of the assertions and proposals.
I. INTRODUCTION
During the 80s, many studies interested three-element
resonant converter topologies [1], that could possibly
overcome some limitations of two-element solutions. While
the LC-L resonant topology was first introduced in 1988 [2],
industry applications started to appear only in the last decade
as suggested by 2002 patent [3] for the LLC topology based
on the topology initially presented in [2]. Indeed, resonant
converters have been confined in the last thirty years to niche
applications such as very high-voltage applications, airborne
radars or high fidelity audio systems while much effort was
spent in research by industries and universities because of
their attractive features: smooth waveforms, high efficiency
and high power density. In recent times, the LLC resonant
converter, in particular in its half-bridge implementation, has
been interested by a larger diffusion since it has been widely
and successfully applied to flat panel TV, 80+ ATX and
small form factor PC, where the requirements on efficiency,
power density and EMC compliance of their switching mode
power supplies (SMPS) are getting more and more stringent.
However, future SMPS requirements will have to face one of
the few remaining drawbacks of LLC resonant converter
topology that is related to the output filter capacitor volume.
Taking advantage of the interleaved approach, successfully
applied in the past to synchronous buck solutions, in
particular for point of load applications, the injection of
rectified sine wave currents into the output filter capacitor
can be adequately mitigated, thus reducing the total ripple.
Recently, many works have dealt with this issue and two-
phase solutions, operating with 90 degrees phase-shift [4], or
even three-phase approaches, exploiting 120 degrees phase-
shift [5], have been proposed. One drawback of these
solutions is represented by the inherent current imbalance
caused by resonant component mismatch that can lead one
module or two modules (in the three-phase topology) to
reduce or even null their delivered power, requiring
mandatory workarounds to overcome the problem [6, 7]. In
Section II, a novel three-phase approach for LLC resonant
converter is introduced to avoid this great drawback by
means of a proper connection of the three interleaved
modules. The advantages of this solution over the traditional
parallel topology are illustrated through Simulink
simulations, suggesting the inherent balancing capability of
the proposed approach in getting rid of resonant components
tolerance effects. Section III presents an additional closed-
loop control that can be exploited to regulate modules phase-
shift in order to increase the reduction of current imbalance
caused by component mismatch. This solution is initially
tested at simulation level highlighting its benefits on output
current ripple and current imbalance. Finally, in Section IV, a
laboratory prototype is introduced to validate previous
assertions and proposals

978-1-4244-2893-9/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE 1145

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 28,2010 at 08:26:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 II. THREE-PHASE LLC CONVERTER EXPLOITING STAR VIN
M UP
LR N1:N2,N2
CONNECTION FOR PRIMARY WINDINGS D1 VOUT

Copious literature deals with LLC resonant converters M DN

LM
COUT

[8-13] presenting their behavior and proper design guidelines. CR

The basic scheme of a LLC resonant converter is depicted
in Fig. 1. This topology exhibits a large current ripple on the
output filter capacitor (COUT in Fig. 1) because of the rectified
sine-wave current injected through the transformer secondary
windings. In order to reduce the capacitor size, the
interleaved approach can be profitably applied as
demonstrated in [4, 5]. A multi-phase LLC converter can be
therefore implemented, as depicted in Fig. 2, through the
parallel connection of three identical LLC converters (output
nodes shorted to the same load) switched at the same
frequency but with 120 degrees phase-shift of their driving
signals. In particular, referring to Fig. 2, it must be noticed
that the simple parallel connection keeps the transformer
primary windings connected to ground, as proposed in [5].
Ideally, this three-phase solution allows a drastic reduction of
the output current ripple, as compared to the single phase
topology, thanks to the sum of three identical rectified
currents with 120 phase-shift. This principle of operation is
presented in Fig. 3 (a) for a three-phase LLC converter
operated at 400 V input voltage and 18 A output current. The
waveforms presented here and in the following are obtained
by MATLAB simulations (using toolboxes Simulink and
PLECS) implementing the three-phase converter model
depicted in Fig. 2 with specifications and component sizing
listed in TABLE I. As can be inferred from the specifications,
the LLC converter is intended to operate in conjunction with
a boost PFC stage that regulates the resonant converter input
voltage at 400 V nominal. Top plot in Fig. 3 (a) depicts the
modules rectified currents during approximately one
switching period (FSW 95 kHz) while their sum, and
therefore the total output current injected into the filter
capacitor, is plotted in the bottom section showing the
increase of current ripple frequency up to 6 times the
converter switching frequency.
TABLE I
SPECIFICATIONS AND COMPONENT SIZING.
VIN 320-420 V
VIN-NOMINAL 400 V
VOUT 24 V
IOUT 0-18 A
CR , CR1 , CR2 , CR3 22 nF
LR , LR1 , LR2 , LR3 110 H - the total output current, being supplied by only one
LM , LM1 , LM2 , LM3 585 H module, no longer benefits of the interleaved
COUT 4400+470 F topology, exhibiting a rectified sinusoidal waveform;
N1 36 Turns
N2 4 Turns
D2
Fig. 1. Scheme of a single module LLC resonant converter.
VIN L R1
CR1 N1:N2,N2 VOUT
LM1 COUT
CR2 L R2 N1:N2,N2
LM2
Y
CR3 L R3
N1:N2,N2
LM3
Fig. 2. Interleaved three-phase LLC resonant converter with or without
floating star connection
The major drawback of the proposed interleaved solutions
for LLC resonant converters, both three-phase and two-phase,
is represented by the effect of resonant component
mismatches on the current sharing among modules. In order
to investigate such effect on the three-phase LLC converter a
simulation has been performed, in the same operating
condition as before, including the effect of components
tolerance. Module 1 has been modeled with ideal size for
resonant components, while module two and three exhibit a
mismatch concentrated on resonant capacitor. In particular,
CR2 is supposed to be 10% larger than nominal value, while
CR3 10% smaller. Fig. 3 (b) shows the simulated rectified
currents and the total output current in such situation. It can
be noticed that only one of the three modules is actually
delivering current to the output capacitor. While the modules
are operated at the same switching frequency, controlled by
the voltage regulation loop, the resonant component
mismatch causes the three phases to exhibit different voltage
conversion ratios causing one module or even two modules
(as in this test-case) to totally reduce their delivered power to
zero. Thus, two main drawbacks can be noticed:
- the three modules deliver different amounts of the
required power and therefore a considerable current

1146

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 28,2010 at 08:26:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 derating must be taken into account during the design
phase, increasing the converter cost.
In order to avoid these limitations and to allow the use of
the interleaved solution in mass production applications, a
different arrangement will be presented in the following.
The proposed topology is derived from the original
three-phase LLC solution by removing the transformer
primary winding connections to ground and shorting them in
a single Y node as highlighted in Fig. 2. The new
arrangement still allows the benefits of multi-phase
interleaved solution while exhibiting an inherent balancing
capability towards resonant component mismatch thanks to
the automatic modulation performed by Y node. Fig. 4 shows
the results of a new set of simulations on the proposed three-
phase solution with primary-side star connection (Y three-
phase LLC converter or Y-LLC in the following) in the same
operating condition as the previous simulation results for the
parallel three-phase solution (VIN = 400 V; IOUT = 18 A).
35
30
CURRENTS
In ideal conditions (Fig. 4 (a)), the Y-LLC converter shows
a total output current ripple equivalent to the parallel
topology whereas the modules rectified currents are partially
warped by Y node modulation. In Fig. 4 (b), on the contrary,
the effect of resonant component mismatch is emulated (CR1
nominal value, CR2 = CR+10%, CR3 = CR-10%) demonstrating
the inherent balancing capability. All three modules
contribute to the total output current delivery even if they
exhibit a larger current deformation. Moreover, the total
output current still benefits of the interleaved approach
highlighting a residual ripple period that is half of the
converter switching period (instead of 1/6).
III. PHASE-SHIFT CONTROL FOR CURRENT BALANCING
The simulation results presented in the previous section
prove the high balancing capability of the Y- LLC topology
as compared to the simple parallel topology with
transformers primary windings connected to ground. It has
been demonstrated that resonant component tolerances may
cause current mismatch among modules and therefore an
increase of output current ripple.
The simulation results presented in Fig. 4 suggest the

25
RECTIFIED

MODULE 1
20 MODULE 2 MODULE 3 possibility to operate on module phase shift to additionally
[A]

15
reduce the output current ripple and current mismatch
10
5 exploiting the modulation of Y node. In order to adequately
0 compensate for component tolerances, it is necessary to
35
operate on two module phase-shifts, being the sum of the
OUTPUT CURRENT

30
25
three fixed. In the following, three different approaches will
be presented based on the monitoring of three different
TOTAL

20
[A]

15 current variables.
10
5 The first approach here presented is intended to regulate the
0
2 s/div phase shifts 1-2 and 2-3, which are the phase differences
(a) between module 1 and 2 and module 2 and 3 respectively, by
means of the secondary-side current peak values, as
35
MODULE 3 illustrated in Fig. 5. The two phase-shift corrections are
30
evaluated separately by an integral regulator processing the
CURRENTS

25
RECTIFIED

20 difference among the peak values of respective modules.

[A]

15 Undoubtedly the proposed approach cannot ensure the

10 MODULE 1
MODULE 2 minimization of output current ripple since the output current
5
0 is not sensed; however, the simulation results, illustrated in
35 Fig. 6 (a), highlight the benefits of this phase-shift control
OUTPUT CURRENT

30
applied to the Y-LLC converter. Simulations are performed at
25
full-load (18 A) for different input voltages (320-420 V) with
TOTAL

20
and without resonant component mismatch (mismatch
[A]

15
10 concentrated on resonant capacitors: CR1 = CR, CR2 = 1.1CR,
5 CR3 = 0.9CR). In particular, the results refer to peak-to-peak
0
2 s/div values of output current ripple with capacitor mismatch,
(b) normalized to the output current ripple using ideal condition
and without phase-control. It can be noticed that with no
Fig. 3. Simulated rectified currents and total output current waveforms phase-control the resonant capacitor mismatch can induce an
(VIN = 400 V; IOUT = 18 A) for a three-phase LLC converter using simple
increase of the output current ripple up to a factor three
parallel topology. (a) with ideal resonant components and (b) with resonant
capacitor mismatch (CR1 = CR; CR2 = 1.1CR; CR3 = 0.9CR). (+200%); on the contrary the peak-control for phase-

1147

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 28,2010 at 08:26:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
controller can greatly mitigate this effect, reducing the VIN LR1
MEAN OR
PEAK
VOUT
current ripple increment down to 40%. At the same time, the 1 VALUE

proposed control approach allows a much better current LM1

+ INTEGRAL
1-2
balancing among modules of the Y-LLC solution as CR1 - REGULATOR

illustrated in Fig. 6 (b). Without phase-control the Y-LLC MEAN OR

solution inherently balances the mean current delivered by 2

LR2 PEAK
VALUE

the three modules (when resonant capacitor mismatch is LM2

+ INTEGRAL
applied) with a residual error up to 15%, while the peak- CR2 - REGULATOR 2-3

control reduces the current mismatch to only 5%.

MEAN OR
LR3 PEAK
15 3 VALUE

MODULE 1 MODULE 2 MODULE 3 LM3

CURRENTS
RECTIFIED

10 CR3
[A]

5
Fig. 5. Three-phase LLC resonant converter exploiting secondary-side mean
or peak value phase-shift control for modules current balancing.
0
25
OUTPUT CURRENT

20
TOTAL

15
[A]

210
10

INCREMENT WITH CR MISMATCH [%]

5 OUTPUT CURRENT PEAK-TO-PEAK 180 NO PHASE CONTROL
0
60 150
40
120
VOLTAGE

20
Y NODE

MEAN CONTROL
[V]

0 "MEAN CONTROL"
90 @ SECONDARY-SIDE
-20 @ PRIMARY-SIDE
-40 60
-60
2 s/div
30
(a) PEAK CONTROL
15 @ SECONDARY-SIDE
0
MODULE 1 MODULE 3
MODULE 2 320 340 360 380 400 420
CURRENTS
RECTIFIED

10 DC INPUT VOLTAGE [V]

[A]

(a)
5
16
MODULE'S MEAN CURRENT MISMATCH
INCREMENT WITH CR MISMATCH [%]

0
14
25
OUTPUT CURRENT

NO PHASE CONTROL
20 12
TOTAL

15
10
[A]

10
8 "MEAN CONTROL"
5
@ PRIMARY-SIDE
0 6 MEAN CONTROL
60 @ SECONDARY-SIDE PEAK CONTROL
40 4 @ SECONDARY-SIDE
VOLTAGE

20
Y NODE

2
[V]

0
-20 0
-40 320 340 360 380 400 420
-60 DC INPUT VOLTAGE [V]
2 s/div
(b) (b)

Fig. 4. Rectified currents, total output current and floating star connection
node voltage simulated waveforms (VIN = 400 V; IOUT = 18 A) for a
three-phase LLC converter with floating star connection at transformer
primary windings. (a) with ideal resonant components and (b) with resonant
capacitor mismatch (CR1 = CR; CR2 = 1.1CR; CR3 = 0.9CR).
Fig. 6. Simulated output current peak-to-peak increment (a) and modules
mean current mismatch (b), as a function of input voltage, using different
phase-control approaches on a Y-LLC topology.
(IOUT = 18 A; CR1 = CR; CR2 = 1.1CR; CR3 = 0.9CR)

1148

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 28,2010 at 08:26:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 In order to further decrease the current mismatch among
modules induced by component tolerances a different control
approach can be implemented. As depicted in Fig. 5, instead
of a peak-control on secondary-side rectified currents, a
mean value control can be conveniently arranged. As can
be noticed from the simulation results plotted in Fig. 6 (b) the
current mismatch at full-load is stunningly reduced to less
than 2%, even in the presence of a consistent resonant
capacitor mismatch. On the other hand, the peak-to-peak
output current ripple is larger than using peak-control;
anyway the increment of ripple value appears to be halved
compared to Y-LLC converter without any phase-control
implemented.
Both secondary-side approaches give excellent results for
current balancing and output current ripple reduction.
However, it must be noticed that in such applications the high
output current values, in conjunction with the efficiency
requirements, may discourage the use of secondary-side
current sensing. Thus, a primary-side current sensing can be
preferred to regulate the phase-shift between modules. Fig. 7
depicts the proposed mean value phase-control obtained by
regulating the mean value of primary-side rectified currents.
The new approach allows an adequate control of the current
balance between modules, as demonstrated by simulation
results plotted in Fig. 6 (b). However, it must be noticed that
while the mean value control on the secondary-side rectified
currents allows exact regulation of the controlled variables, in
the primary-side phase-control approach the three module
output currents are regulated by means of their primary-side
currents. Thus, shunt inductances and so magnetizing
currents can introduce additional errors on balancing-control
due to mismatches and/or warping of monitored currents.
Indeed, it can be noticed that the difference between primary-
side and secondary-side mean current values increases for
lower input voltages, that is increasing discontinuous mode
operation. This phenomenon is verified even evaluating the
peak-to-peak output current ripple as demonstrated by
simulation results presented in Fig. 6 (a).
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In order to validate the simulation results presented in the
previous sections, a prototype has been built and
experimental results are illustrated in the following.
Three LLC modules have been designed and prototyped
using specifications listed in TABLE I without any particular
pre-selection of resonant components. The isolation
transformers use magnetic integration approach [14],
incorporating the resonant series (LR) and shunt (LM)
inductances. Thus, no additional external coils are needed for
1149
Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 28,2010 at 08:26:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the resonance inductance. The layout for the interleaved
solution has been designed in order to allow both a simple
parallel connection and a floating star connection, as required
for Y-LLC solution. As previously suggested by simulation
results in Section II, the inherent current balancing capability
of the Y-LLC and in particular the advantages of this
approach over the simple parallel topology are demonstrated
by experimental results on laboratory prototype. TABLE II
presents the comparison of average current values measured
under different operating conditions for the two approaches.
The mean current delivered by each module is listed together
with the difference from nominal value, expressed as a
percentage of the nominal value. It can be noticed that, in the
actual situation, the current mismatch measured for the
simple parallel topology is up to 75%, while in the Y-LLC
solution it does not exceed +5%.
The advantages of star-connection over the simple parallel
are even more evident if a larger mismatch is manually added
to the interleaved modules. Fig. 8 plots the oscilloscope
screenshots for primary-side currents circulating in the three
modules at 400 V input voltage and 8 A total output current
when an additional 2.7 nF capacitor is added in parallel to
CR3. Fig. 8(a), depicting the three currents in a simple parallel
topology, highlights that module 3 is not longer delivering
power since the resonant current is only interested by the
magnetizing current as suggested by the triangular waveform.
Meanwhile, module 1 is evidently delivering a higher current
compared to module 2. On the contrary, Fig. 8(b)
demonstrates that, even with a considerable component
mismatch, all the three phases are almost equally contributing
to the total power delivery.
VIN
MEAN OF
ABSOLUTE
LR1
1
VOUT
VALUE
LM1
+ INTEGRAL
CR1 - REGULATOR 1-2
MEAN OF
LR2 ABSOLUTE
2 VALUE
LM2
+ INTEGRAL
2-3
CR2 - REGULATOR
MEAN OF
3
LR3 ABSOLUTE
VALUE
LM3
CR3
Fig. 7. Three-phase LLC resonant converter using mean value of primary-
side rectified currents for phase-shift control.
 TABLE II
AVERAGE CURRENTS SUPPLIED BY EACH MODULE AT DIFFERENT OPERATING CONDITIONS.
SIMPLE PARALLEL CONNECTION STAR CONNECTION

VIN =320 V VIN =320 V VIN =400 V VIN =400 V VIN =320 V VIN =320 V VIN =400 V VIN =400 V
IOUT = 6 A IOUT = 8 A IOUT = 6 A IOUT = 8 A IOUT = 6 A IOUT = 8 A IOUT = 6 A IOUT = 8 A
IOUT-1 [A] 3.5 (+75%) 4.3 (+62%) 3.5 (+75%) 4.3 (+62%) 2.1 (+5%) 2.8 (+5%) 2.1 (+5%) 2.8 (+5%)
IOUT-2 [A] 1.0 (-50%) 1.6 (-40%) 1.1 (-45%) 1.7 (-36%) 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.6 (-2.5%)
IOUT-3 [A] 1.5 (-25%) 2.1 (-22%) 1.4 (-30%) 2.0 (-26%) 1.9 (-5%) 2.5 (-5%) 1.9 (-5%) 2.6 (-2.5%)

In order to validate the phase-control approach, presented in
Section III, to increase the current balancing between the
modules of a Y-LLC converter, some additional
modifications are added to the experimental prototype, as
illustrated in Fig. 9. In particular, three current transformers,
CT1-3 in the picture, have been included in series to the
primary-side circuits to sense resonant currents. Three
Schottky diode-bridges are used to rectify such currents and
two pre-conditioning circuits are properly designed to
evaluate the difference between the mean currents of two
modules. Finally, a DSP by Texas-Instrument is added to the
prototype to perform output voltage control through
regulation of the converter switching frequency and to
implement two integral regulators for the phase-control.
Previous experimental results presented in TABLE II
highlighted a residual current imbalance of 5%. In order to
clearly evaluate the benefits of an additional phase-shift
control, resonant component mismatch has been manually
forced in the following tests by addition of a 2.7 nF capacitor
in parallel to one of the three modules. The results of such
tests are illustrated in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 as a function of
output current (@ VIN = 400 V). In particular, in Fig. 10 the
maximum current mismatch for the Y-LLC prototype is
evaluated with and without phase-controller. Such results
point out again the inherent balancing capability of star
connection that, even without phase-control, allows current
mismatch below 12%, suggesting that additional phase-shift
regulation is not mandatory. The introduction of such

iP1-RECT
Module 1 Module 3 VIN S1 VOUT
MEAN-CURRENT
CT1 DIFFERENCE

+ Ki
- 1 + s

iP2-RECT
S2
MEAN-CURRENT
CT2 DIFFERENCE

+ Ki
Module 2 - 1 + s
iP3-RECT
(a)
S3
CT3
Module 1 Module 3

A/D A/D

PID (z) I (z)

12 23
S1
DIGITAL
Module 2 S2 PWM
S3 DSP
(b)

Fig. 8. Measured resonant currents flowing in the three modules of LLC Fig. 9. Concept scheme of the prototype for three-phase star-connected LLC
converter (400 mA/div, 2 s/div) with simple parallel connection (a) and converter with phase-shift controller.
with star connection of transformer primary windings (b) @ VIN = 400 V,
IOUT = 8 A (CR3 = CR + 2.7 nF).

1150

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 28,2010 at 08:26:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
regulation however allows an additional reduction of the 7

ADDITIONAL PHASE-SHIFT [DEGREES]

current mismatch to 2%. The residual current imbalance, as

(INTRODUCED BY CONTROLLER)
5
stated before, is partially caused by the fact that current 23
3
sensing is performed on the primary-side while current
1
mismatch is measured for dc output currents. Moreover, in
-1
the experimental set-up, also the effect of components
tolerance for the pre-conditioning circuits and current -3

transformers introduce some more errors. Finally, it can be -5

12
noticed that, for all these reasons, the phase-controller has a -7
beneficial influence on current mismatch regulation only at -9
medium/high current values, while for lower ones the control 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
circuit mismatches introduce an additional current imbalance OUTPUT CURRENT [A]
between modules. Therefore, it appears mandatory to activate Fig. 11. Measured phase-shifts introduced by control loop to compensate for
such phase-controller only above a pre-determined current current mismatch among three modules (VIN = 400 V, CR2 = CR + 2.7 nF).
threshold.
Fig. 11 shows the additional phase shift introduced by the
controller to compensate for current mismatch. It can be
noticed, that the optimal phase-shift added by loop-control
IOUT-3_AVG IOUT-2_AVG
varies with the output current and, as a consequence, cannot
be pre-calculated and permanently added to each module.
Moreover, also a dependence of the phase-shift on the input
voltage can be expected, precluding again the use of a feed- IOUT-1_AVG
forward approach.
Finally, the effect of such phase control is evaluated during
load step variations. In Fig. 12, the measurements on the VOUT
prototype, with 400 V input voltage and a load variation from
0 to 18 A, are illustrated. Many details concerning the design
of voltage control loop are discussed and presented in [15].
(a)

20
MAXIMUM CURRNET MISMATCH [%]

18 IOUT-2_AVG
IOUT-3_AVG
16
14
12 NO PHASE CONTROL
10
IOUT-1_AVG
8
6
WITH PHASE CONTROL REGULATION
4
VOUT
2
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
OUTPUT CURRENT [A] (b)

Fig. 10. Measured mismatch of currents supplied by each module as a Fig. 12. Modules mean currents (1 A/div) and converters output voltage
function of output current (VIN = 400 V, CR2 = CR + 2.7 nF). (300 mV/div) measured with (b) and without (a) phase-controller for a load-
step from 0 to 18 A. (VIN = 400 V, CR1 = CR + 2.7 nF). Time axis: 2 ms/div.

1151

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 28,2010 at 08:26:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 In order to magnify the benefits of the phase-controller, an
additional 2.7 nF capacitor is added to module 1 while the
other modules use nominal capacitances. In Fig. 12 (a) the
average currents delivered by each module at secondary side
without phase-controller (fixed 120 phase-shift) are depicted
exhibiting more than 1 A mismatch. On the contrary, in Fig.
12 (b), the phase-controller is activated showing an almost
complete balancing in about 10 ms. The graphical results are
impressive and greatly validate this proof of concept. It must
be noticed that the phase-controller response-time can be
additionally shortened, even if a faster response is not
mandatory and/or forbidden to avoid interaction with the
main voltage control loop and possibly cause instability.
It is also very interesting to notice that in both cases, with and
without phase-controller, the current overshoots after load-
step are the same. The introduction of an additional phase-
shift closed-loop regulated by the phase-controller doesnt
influence the converter dynamic response and therefore no
additional current stresses need to be considered and/or
managed.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a novel approach for multi-phase LLC
resonant converters is introduced. The proposed topology is
constituted by three half-bridge LLC converters with
transformer primary windings star connection. The
investigated three-phase solution allows a drastic reduction of
the output current ripple, as compared to the single-module
topology. Furthermore, it exhibits an intrinsic balancing
capability that is not common to other resonant interleaved
solutions, as demonstrated by simulation results. Additional
phase-shift regulators, operating in parallel to the main
voltage control loop, are also proposed to reduce current
imbalance between modules caused by resonant component
mismatch. Finally, an experimental prototype is presented as
a validation of the proposed topology and the phase-shift
control strategy.
1152
Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 28,2010 at 08:26:37 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
View publication stats
REFERENCES
[1] R. Severns, Topologies for three element resonant converters, in
Proc 1990 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference - APEC, pp.
712-722.
[2] E. G. Schmidtner, A new high switching frequency resonant converter
topology, in Proc. High Frequencv Power Conversion Conference,
1988, pp. 390-403.
[3] G. Huang, A. J. Zhang and Y. Gu, LLC series resonant dc-to-dc
converter, US patent 6344979 B1, Feb. 2002.
[4] I. Apeland and R. Myhre, Phase-shifted resonant converter having
reduced output ripple, US patent 6970366 B2, Nov. 2005.
[5] T. Jin and K.. Smedley, Multiphase LLC series resonant converter for
microprocessor voltage regulation, in Proc. 2006 IEEE 41st Industry
Applications Conference IAS, Vol. 5, 8-12 Oct. 2006, pp. 2136
2143.
[6] H. Figge, T. Grote, N. Froehleke. J. Boecker and P. Ide, Paralleling of
LLC resonant converter using frequency controlled current balancing,
in Proc. 2008 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference,
pp. 10801085.
[7] E. Orietti, P. Mattavelli, G. Spiazzi, C. Adragna and G. Gattavari,
Two-Phases Interleaved LLC Resonant Converter with Current-
Controlled Inductor, to be published in Proc. of 2009 10th Brazilian
Power Electronics Conference COBEP.
[8] B. Yang, F. C. Lee, A. J. Zhang and G. Huang, LLC resonant
converter for fornt end dc/dc conversion, in Proc. 2002 IEEE Applied
Power Electronics Conference - APEC, pp. 11081112.
[9] B. Yang, Topology investigation for front end dc/dc power conversion
for distributed power system, Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, 2003.
[10] G. Ivensky, S. Bronstein and S. Ben-Yaakov, Approximate analysis of
the resonant LCL DC-DC converter, in Proc. 2004 23rd Convention
of IEEE Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp. 44-47.
[11] ST Microelectronics, Application Note 2393: Reference design: wide
range 200W L6599-based HB LLC resonant converter for LCD TV &
flat panels, Aug. 2006.
[12] ST Microelectronics, Application Note 2450: LLC resonant half-
bridge converter design guideline, Mar. 2007.
[13] C. Adragna, S. De Simone and C. Spini, A design methodology for
LLC resonant converters based on inspection of resonant tank
currents, in Proc 2008 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference -
APEC, pp.13611367.
[14] Bo Yang, C. Rengang, F. C. Lee, Integrated magnetic for LLC
resonant converter, in Proc. 2002 IEEE 70th Applied Power
Electronics Conference and Exposition, pp. 346351.
[15] E. Orietti, P. Mattavelli, G. Spiazzi, C. Adragna and G. Gattavari,
Analysis of Multi-Phase LLC Resonant Converters, to be published
in Proc. of 2009 10th Brazilian Power Electronics Conference
COBEP.