Generalized Small-Signal Dynamical Modeling
of Multi-Port Dc-Dc Converters
David C. Hamill
School of Electronic Engineering, Information Technology and Mathematics
University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, United Kingdom
D.Hamill@surrey.ac.uk
Abstract - A general method is presented for modeling multi-
port dc-dc converters. It copes with multiple inputs, multiple
outputs and bidirectional ports, and is, based on an averaging
formulation. A matrix description is adopted, so the technique
can be extended to converters with any number of ports. As an
example, a three-port forward-flyback converter is analyzed
using symbolic computation software (Maple V).
I. INTRODUCTION
ompared with the attention paiid to two-port conver-
C
ters, little consideration has bjeen given to modeling
multi-output dc-dc converters. Important characteris-
tics such as static and dynamic cross; regulation have been
little explored in the literature, and then usually only on an
ad-hoc basis - e.g. [l], [2]. Furthermore, very little work
has been done on generalized multi-port dc-dc converters.
For example, a personal computer power supply could com-
prise a single converter with multiple dc outputs as usual,
but two dc inputs: one fed from rectified ac mains, the other
from a secondary battery. The battery port could be bidirec-
tional, to allow recharging. A generalized dc-dc converter
can have multiple input ports, multiple output ports and
bidirectional ports.
This paper describes a general method for small-signal
modeling of any multi-port dc-dc converter. It is based on
matrices, for several reasons: they provide a compact nota-
tion; the results can be applied to converters with any num-
ber of ports; numerical matrix computations are easily
programmed using standard linear algebra packages, work-
sheets such as MathCad, and even spreadsheets; and matrix
algebra can be automated with symbolic computation pack-
ages such as Maple, Mathematica and Macsyma.
Most analyses of two-port dc-dc converters start by assum-
ing a stiff voltage source at the input amd a resistive load at
the output. For good reasons the proposed approach does not.
At its input, a converter is often fed from a filter, or at least
via some line impedance decoupled by a capacitor. At the
output, the load's dc characteristic many vary from constant
Q 1997 IEEE
0-7803-3840-5/97/$10.00 42 1
voltage to constant current, or be nonlinear, so a linear re-
sistive load is a special case. With other loads, the small-
signal damping will differ from that predicted using an
equivalent load resistance. Worse, the load could be induc-
tive or capacitive, and this will greatly affect the overall
system dynamics. For these cases, models developed using a
stiff voltage source and a resistive load will give misleading
results. Instead, the aim should be to model the converter in
isolation from its surrounding circuit. Provided its terminal
characteristics are properly represented, such a model can
subsequently be embedded within a complete power system,
allowing the interactions to be assessed with ease. This is the
basis of two-port circuit theory, adapted here to multiple
ports.
First, a generalized model of an open loop dc-dc converter
is developed, assuming an averaged description. Next, the
characteristics are linearized around a quiescent operating
point. Finally, the open loop model is embedded within a
feedback control loop. The method is subject to the usual
limitation of linear models: it may be inaccurate for large
signals. Nevertheless, linearized average models have proved
popular with engineers because they allow the application of
standard linear systems control theory.
II. THE OPEN LOOP CONVERTER
A dc-dc converter has two or more power ports. If power
always flows into the converter it is an input port; if power
always flows out, it is an output port; if power can flow in
either direction, it is bidirectional. However, for generality,
the standard circuit-theory sign convention is adopted here:
the reference direction of current is into the positive terminal
of each port, as shown in Fig. 1. No distinction is made
between input and output ports; if the power at a port is
positive, it is acting as an input; if negative, as an output.
A. The State Vector
The model presented is based on four essential vectors, the
first of which is the state vector x(t).A general description of
a dynamical system is:
 +
where distinguishes a particular system. The dynamics of
an mth-order converter can be characterized by m internal
state variables, usually the inductor currents and capacitor
voltages. These state variables can be formed into an instan-
taneous state vector, x,,Jt) E R. This gives an exact de-
scription of the time varying, nonlinear circuit including, for
example, ripple at the switching frequency.
In most converters, some components of the state vector
will be fast (comparable to the switching frequency) and
others will be slow. In many cases the model can be sim-
plified by overlooking the fast variables. A suitable process
converts the time varying mth order model into a time in-
variant nth order one, n < m. The instantaneous state vector
n,,,(t) E W is changed into an equivalent low frequency
state vector x(t) E OB
Two approaches for eliminating the fast variables are
sampling and averaging. In the first, x J t ) is sampled at the
switching frequency f,, and the fast variables are neglected.
(Though not attempted here, the method presented could be
adapted to a sampled data description.) Alternatively, any of
the averaging methods developed for two-port converters can
in principle be used to obtain x(t). These include the original
circuit averaging process [3], state space averaging [4],
injected-absorbed currents [5], the PWM switch model [6],
Bogoliubov averaging [7], and switching-frequency depen-
dent averaging [SI. Of particular interest are symbolic com-
putational methods [9]. Discussion of the pros and cons of
particular averaging processes is outside the scope of this
paper: it is assumed that some satisfactory process exists for
mapping x,,,(t) to x(t), and that the dynamics of the conver-
ter are adequately described by the result.
B. The Port Vectors
Suppose the dc-dc Converter has N power ports. The port
currents iT and voltages v, , r = 1 ... N, comprise a set of 2N
port variables. For each port we choose either i, or vr and
form the chosen quantities into a vector of independent vari-
ables, w(t) E RN.The remaining quantities are then formed
into a vector of dependent variables, y(t) E RN.
There are many ways in which the port variables can be
assigned to the two vectors, some of which are more helpful
than others. For each port it must be decided which variable,
i or v, is to be regarded as the independent one. For instance,
if the converter is designed to deliver a constant voltage to a
load, the output ports current should be taken as the inde-
pendent variable, because the load. not the converter. deter-
mines the current drawn. The current is independent of the
converter so it should be the independent variable. Converse-
ly, if the converter is meant to deliver a constant current, e.g.
as a battery charger, the load voltage should be taken as the
422
dc-dc
converter
L- N-i
other ports
Fig. 1: Generalized multi-port dc-dc converter, showing
reference directions of current and voltage.
independent variable - the batterys voltage is independent
of the converter and changes according to the state of charge.
Moving to the input port, the supply is usually approximated
by a variable voltage source, so voltage should be chosen as
the independent variable, with the converters input current
as the dependent variable. In control system terminology, the
components of w are disturbances to the system, while the
components of y represent its response.
A very common situation, termed here the Ordinary Case,
is when the converter has a single input port and N - 1 out-
put ports. For this case the independent vector w best con-
sists of the input voltage and the output currents, while the
dependent vector y comprises the input current and the out-
put voltages.
C. The Control Vector
Let the converter have M control variables. For example,
these might include signals that determine the duty ratio or
frequency of a switching device, or control magnetic amplifi-
ers. The control signals form a vector u(t) E RM.
It might be thought that if A4 = N all the dependent vari-
ables of y could be individually controlled by U. This is not
necessarily so. In an ideal lossless converter, with the sign
convention adopted the total power entering the converter
must be zero. This removes one degree of freedom, so only
N - 1 components of y can be controlled by U .
Often, M < N - 1; then it is impossible to control more
than A4 dependent variables, and the rest must rely upon
cross regulation. If the converter is allowed losses, the total
power entering the converter is no longer constrained to
zero: it is positive and equal to the losses. Now all N depen-
dent variables can be individually controlled, for instance by
including linear regulators in the converter. (This adversely
affects efficiency.) In the Ordinary Case it is only necessary
to control the .V - 1 output ports, while the input current
goes where it must.
D. Large-Signal Model
The open loop converter can be characterized by two non-
linear vector equations linking the essential vectors U, w, x
and y:
Y(0 = Ur[X(t)> w,W ( 4 l
The state equation. (2), governs the (converterslarge-signal
dynamics as it reacts to the control signals and independent
port variables. Equation (3), the response equation (output
equation in control terms), describes how the dependent
port variables respond. Functions 4 and y are attributes of a
particular converter.
loop stability, the converter will settle to a steady state where
x(t) = const = X and y(t) = const = Y. Substituting for U, w,
x and y in (2) and (3), and setting dxldt = 0 (since X =
const), X may be found in terms of U, W and Y. This gives
the steady state operating point, Q = {U,W, X, Y >.
Now consider small perturbations around (2. Adapting the
usual notation for dc-dc converters to the vector case, let
x(t) = X + g(t) , etc., where k(t) is a small perturbation from
(3)
the steady state equilibrium. Provided they are smooth, the
nonlinear functions 4 and y may each be expanded by a
multivariable Taylor series; truncating after the linear terms,
(2) and (3) become
d
- act) = A i ( t ) + B G(t) + E G(t) (4)
dt

E. Linearization $(f) = C i(t) i-

D h(t) + F&(t) (5)
We next find the steady state. Let u(t) = const = U (i.e. the where A, B, C, D, E and F are real, constant matrices:
control signals are held steady) and w(t) = const = W (i.e.
the independent variables are dc quantities). Assuming open

TABLE
I:NOMENCLARJKE MODEL
FOR THE GENERALIZED

SCALARS

n hmension of the averaged dynmcal system

M number of control signals Here the ijth entry of the sensitivity matrix %/ax is 84,/&, ,
etc. Equations (4) and (9,valid for small perturbations only,
N number of wrts are an augmented version of the standard state space descrip-
VECTORS: tion of a multivariable linear system. Fig. 2 shows the equa-
i(s> (,Ux 1) small-signal control vector * tions as a block schematic. The notation follows that of [lo]:
matrices A, B, C and D have their usual linear-systems
&(s) (N x 1) small-signal independent ~ortvector *
meaning. Of particular importance is the system matrix A,
i(s) (n x 1) small-signal state vector * whose eigenvalues govern the dynamics. Matrices E and F
i ( s ) (N x 1) small-signal dependent port vector * represent direct feed-through of disturbances.
4 (n x 1) RHS of the state equation F. Open Loop Small-Signal Model
w (Nx 1) RHS of the response quahion Taking Laplace transforms, (4) and (5) become
* x is a large-signal quantity; :i is a small-signal quantity
s i @ )= A i(s) + B $s) + E &(s) (7)

Wh t i ( s )= C ;(s) + D h(s) + F+(s) (8)

wal f where, with some abuse of notation, i ( s ) is to be understood
r as the Laplace transform of i ( t ) ,etc. Finding i ( s ) from (7)
t and substituting into (8) yields the open loop small-signal
model:
wh 7
t
closed loop port-to-port transfer function matrix i(s)= H(s) i(s) + J(s)&(s) (a)
open loop control-teport transfer function matrix (9)
open loop port-to-port transfer function matrix where H(s) = C(s1- A)-B -tD (b)
and J(s) = C(s1- A)-E + F (c)
controller matrix
t evaluated at the operating pin1

423
 m
Fig. 2: Block schematic of the open loop small-signal
model of a dc-dc converter.
(I is the N x N identity matr)ix. In (sa) the internal state
vector ?(s) has been eliminated and the constant matrices A
to F have been replaced by frequency dependent matrices.
Equation (sa) is shown in block schematic form in Fig. 3, a
complete black box small-signal model of a generalized
open loop N-port dc-dc converter. The entries of the N x M
matrix H(s) are transfer hnctions from the A4 control signals
to the N dependent port variables, and the entries of the N x
N matrix J(s) are transfer functions from the N independent
port variables to the N dependent port variables.
111. THE CLOSED LOOP CONVERTER
An objective of a dc-dc converter is to regulate against
disturbances: to maintain certain components of y constant
despite variations in w. Ideally, i ( s ) = 0 . This goal is ap-
proached by applying closed loop control. In the feedback
system of Fig. 4, i ( s ) is compared to zero to produce an error
vector, which is processed by controller K(s) to produce the
control vector ii(s),thus closing the loop.
G(s) = -K(s) $(s) (10)
In general K(s) allows cross coupling, so that any component
of y can influence any or all components of U. From (9) and
(10) the closed loop small-signal model is obtained:
A condition for validity is that I + H(s)K(s) must be nonsin-
gular, which is usually true. A block schematic is shown in
Fig. 5 . Note that if K(s) = 0, ( l l a ) reduces to G(s)= J(s).
A. The Ordinary Case
The Ordinary Case is particularly important in practice.
When the N independent variables are chosen from a set of
424
Fig. 3: The model of Fig. 2 may be reduced to two
frequency dependent blocks and an adder.
2N port variables, there are (2N)!/(2N!)possible combina-
tions, excluding row swaps. This number determines the
different forms of matrix G. (E.g. there are six varieties of
hvo-port parameters, but 60 varieties of three-port parame-
ters.) In the analysis of large multi-port networks, the usual
choice is to group all the currents into one vector and all the
voltages into the other. Depending on which vector is chosen
as independent, the resulting matrix contains either ini-
pedances (2-parameters) or admittances (y-parameters).
However, these are not very useful for the present purposes,
because the y and z-parameters for an ideal converter are all
infinite.
The two-port g-parameters have been suggested by Mand-
hana [ 111 as a small-signal model for dc-dc converters;
where g , , is the converters input admittance, g,, its reverse
current gain, g,,its forward voltage gain, and g2, its output
impedance. This description can be extended to the Ordinary
Case of a multi-port dc-dc converter if the port variables are
segregated into dependent and independent vectors as sug-
gested above. with port 1 taken as the input. Then (1la) may
be written as
1p(T) 1 1
VNW
= A&) I
I
Zo&) \I;*?I
iN(S)
(13)
Here $(SI and +(s) have been partitioned into voltage and
current parts, and the matrix G(s) partitioned accordingly.
Scalar YJs) = g , , = i ,/cl is the converters input admittance,
Row vector Ai(s) = [g,, ... g,,J comprises reverse current
A , . * A
gains, i 1 l i 2 . . i I li,v , and describes how output current
changes affect the input. Column vector A,(s) = k,, _..g,lT
comprises forward voltage gains ;2/; I . . . ;,v/l/G I . It describes
 Open loop converter
Fig. 5 : The model of Fig. 4 can be reduced to a single
Fig. 4: Block schematic of the closed loop small-signal frequency dependent block, forming a small-signal black
model of a dc-dc converter. box model of a multi-port dc-dc converter.

how input voltage changes affect the output voltages, i.e. the discontinuous mode, so both the duty ratio and the switching
dynamic line regulation of the converter frequency affect its output voltage. For this example n = 5
(audiosusceptibility). Ideally all its entries would be zero. (state variables), N = 3 (ports) and A4 = 2 (control signals).
Matrix Z,,(s) = [g,], i, j = 2.. .N, comlprises self and mutual Let the four essential vectors be:
impedances c i i j . The leading-diagonal elements (i = j ) are
the source impedances of each output jport, and describe the State vector x = P L I iL2 vc1 vc2 Val
dynamic load regulation of the converter. The off-diagonal Independent port vector w = [vI io, i,IT
terms (i j ) are mutual impedances relating the port-i cur- Dependent port vector y = [i, vo, vmIT
rent to the port-j voltage, and describe the dynamic cross Control vector U = [6 fl
regulation. Ideally all the entries of Z,,i(s) would be zero.
For cases other than the Ordinary Case, different ways of where i,, is the current in L , , etc., 6 is the duty ratio andf, is
choosing the independent and dependent variables might be the switching frequency. Other quantities are defined in Fig.
more appropriate, and they should be considered on their 6. The circuit has the following parameter values: L , =50pH,
merits. L, = 600pH, Lp = 60pH, C, = 47@, C, = 470pF, C3 = 470pF,
Fs = 49kHz, A =z 0.3, N,,IN, = 20114, y/ = 28V, I,, = -1A, I ,
Thus the N x N transfer function matrix G(s)gives a com-
= -lA. The output voltages are intended to be Yo, = 12V, V,
plete small-signal description of the dy.namics of any N-port
= 12v.
dc-dc converter. For an open loop convierter (with its control
signals held constant), G(s) is identical to J(s). For a closed The low frequency state equation may be found by a
loop converter under the control scheme shown, G(s) is naive averaging process as:
given by (lla). Other forms of control (e.g. innerlouter -
loops) will result in a different form for (1lb).

N. EXAMPLE
As an example, an Ordinary Case converter is analyzed
using the symbolic computation packagie Maple V [ 121. The
method can easily be applied to more complicated conver-
ters, the computer handling the increased complexity of the which corresponds to the state equation (2). Likewise,
algebra.
A. Open Loop Model
The three-port converter shown in Fig. 6 [I31 can be sepa-
rated into two semi-converters: it is basically a forward
converter but, instead of the normal energy-recovery reset corresponds to the response equation (3).
winding, the transformer has a flyback winding. The forward
semi-converter operates in continuous mode, so its output
voltage depends on the duty ratio but is independent of the
switching frequency. The flyback semi-converter operates in

425
 For space reasons only the 5 x 5 A matrix is shown here B
is 5 x 2, C is 3 x 5, D is the 3 x 2 zero matrix, E is 5 x 3,
o1 and F is the 3 x 3 zero matrix
- The H(s) and J(s) matrices are found by computing (10)
and (11) in Maple
+ Hrcrat.=evalm(Cmat&*imse(s* &* () -Amat) &*Bmat+Dmat):
Jmat:=evalm(Cmat&*imse(s * &* (1 -Amat)&*Emat+lFmat) ;
02
-
H(s) is 3 x 2, J(s) is 5 x 5
The full expressions for H(s) and J(s) are too complex to
reproduce here but, substituting numerical parameter values
and setting s = 0, their dc values are found as

I
4.286 -0.875 x
Fig. 6 : Two-output forward-flyback converter used in the
example. H(0) = 40 0
80 -2.45 x

0.0153 -0.4286 0

-101 0.8571 0 12.00

VI At other frequencies the entries will be complex numbers.
Ns
VI-A I
N, Columns 1 and 2 of H(0) indicate the effect of duty ratio
and switching frequency variations, while rows 1, 2 and 3
refer to the input current and the two output voltages. Thus,
for example, if the duty ratio is increased from 0.30 to 0.31,
Substituting numerical values for the parameters, the the input current will increase by 4.286 x 0.01 = 42.86mA,
operating point Q is found as the forward output voltage will increase by 40 x 0.01 =
400mV, and the flyback output voltage will increase by 80 x
U = [A Fs]' = [0.3 49 000HzIT(given) 0.01 = 800mV. If the switching frequency is increased from
W = [VI I,, I,]' = [28V -lA -1A]'(given) 49 to 50kHz, the input current will decrease by 0.875 x
x 1000 = 8.75mA, the forward output voltage will be unaf-
x = [IL, I L 2 Vc, vc, valT fected, and the flyback output voltage will decrease by 2.45 x
= [0.857A 1A 28V 12.0V 12.0v'
x 1000 = 245mV (all dc values).
Y = [i, vol '],v = [0.857A 12.0V 12.0v'
The j , , = 0.0153 entry of J(0) means the incremental input
Matrices A through F are easily computed from their conductance is 15.3mS. The j , , = -0.4286 entry is the cur-
definitions in ( 6 ) ,by calling Maple's jacobian function six rent gain from the forward output current to the input cur-
times. For example, A = (@/ax), is found by rent (negative because all currents are defined as flowing
jacobian(phivec, wec) : into the converter). Increasing the flyback output current
A := subs(Qset, !I) ; does not affect the input current, as shown byj,, = 0, due to
which yields the open loop discontinuous mode operation. The voltage
gains from the input voltage to the two output voltages arej,,
= 0.4286 andj,, = 0.8571 (poor line regulation). The for-
ward output resistance is j,, = O n (perfect load regulation),
while the flyback output resistance isj,, = 1 2 0 (poor load
regulation). The two mutual resistances j,, = j,, = 0Q mean
that this idealized converter has perfect cross regulation.
B. Closed Loop Model
Suppose the loop is closed by adding a simple proportional
controller with no cross coupling:

426
 d I
dosed loop
A 2000 4000 6000 -00
Fig. 7: Dynamic line regulation (audiosusceptibility) of the
example converter, in open loop and closed loop.
r 1
The 3 x 3 G(s)matrix can now be calciulated from (14):
Qnat := evalm(inverse( &* () + Hmat &* Kmat) &* Jmat)
The resulting (extremely large) expression may be simplified
by substituting numerical values for the parameters. Inverse
Laplace transformation can be used to find the response to
steps and other functions, or the matrix may be evaluated in
the frequency domain by setting s =.io. Fig. 7 shows the
dynamic line regulation of the two semi-converters, in open
loop and closed loop with K , = 5 , K2 =: -50. (No evaluation
of stability was made, but in practice this must be done.)
To see the effect of infinite dc loop gain (e.g. by including
ideal integrators in the controller), s was set to zero and the
limit taken as K,-+ CO, K,+ -W. The mw value of G is
1
-0.0306 -0.4286 -0.4286
G(0) = 0 0 0 (21)
[ o 0 0
which may be compared with the equivalent open loop ma-
trix, J(0). The iilfnite loop gain has made the input conduc-
tance negative, g,, = -30.6mS. The reverse current gains are
now both -0.4286. The line, load and cross regulation are
perfect, as shown by the zeroes in rows 2 and 3.
As in [13], the duty ratio was employed to regulate the
forward semi-converter and the switching frequency was
used for the flyback semi-converter. The two control loops
interact, see Fig. 7. For better results the loops should be
decoupled; this will be discussed in a planned future paper.
The full Maple listing of this example is available from
the author on request.
V. CONCLUSION
A technique has been presented for modeling a general-
ized N-port converter, in isolation from its sources and loads.
The starting point is an averaged large-signal state equation,
obtained by any applicable method. The outcome is a full
open loop model. This can be embedded within a control
loop to give a complete small-signal dynamical model, G(s),
for any multi-port dc-dc converter. The matrix formulation is
particularly suited to automatic computation, either numer-
ical or symbolic.
REFERENCES
K. Harada, T. Nabeshima and K. Hisanaga, State-space analysis of the
cross-regulation,Power Electronics Specialists Con$, San Diego, C A
June 1979, pp. 186-192
Y.T. Chen, D.Y. Chen, Y.P. Wu and F.Y. Shih, Small-signal modeling
of multiple-output forward converters with current-mode control, IEEE
Trans. on PowerElectronics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 122-131, Jan. 1996
G.W. Wester and R.D. Middlebrook, Low-frequency characterization
of switched dc-dc converters, IEEE Trans. Aero. and Elec. Systems,
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 376-385, May 1973
R.D. Middlebrook and S. Cuk, A general unified approach to model-
ling switching-converterpower stages, Power Electronics Specialists
;
Con$, Cleveland OH, June 1976, pp. 18-34
A.S. Kislowski, R. Red1 and N.O. Sokal, Dynamic Analysis of
Switching-Mode DC/DC Converters, New York: Van Nostrand Rein-
hold, 1991
V. Vorperian, Simplified analysis of PWM converters using model of
PWM switch, 2 parts, IEEE Trans. Aero. and Elec. Systems, vol. 26,
no. 3, pp. 490-505, May 1990
P.T. Krein, J. Bentsman, R.M. Bass and B.L. Lesieutre, On the use of
averaging for the analysis of power electronic systems, IEEE Trans. on
PowerElectronics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 182-190, Apr. 1990
B. k h a n and R.M. Bass, Switching frequency dependent averaged
models for PWM DC-DC converters, IEEE Trans. on PowerElectron-
ics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 89-98, Jan. 1996
J. Sun and H. Grotstollen, A symbolic computation package for aver-
aged analysis of power electronic systems, Applied Power Electronics
Con$, San Jose, CA, Mar. 1996, vol. 1, pp. 96-102
J. Van de Vegte, Feedback control systems, 2nd edition, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990
0.P Mandhana and R.G. HoA, Two-port characterization of dc to dc
resonant converters, Applied Power Electronics Conf, Los Angeles,
CA, Mar. 1990,737-745
B.W. Char et al., First Leaves; A Tutorial Introduction to Maple V,
New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992
J. Sebastian, J. Uceda, M. Rico, M.A. Perez and F. Aldana, A complete
study of the double forward-flyback converter, Power Electronics
Specialists Con$, Kyoto, June 1988, vol. 1, pp. 142-149
427