Digital Control Of A Boost Converter Using Posicast
Qi Feng, J. Y. Hung, R. M. Nelms
Electrical & Computer Engineering Department
Auburn University
Auburn, AL USA
qifeng@eng.auburn.edu
Abstract—Analysis, design, simulation and DSP-based
implementation of a digital controller using a Posicast element
are presented for the boost converter. Different from the
classical Posicast approach, the proposed control method here
reduces undesirable sensitivity greatly by using Posicast within a
feedback loop. Furthermore, unfavorable effects on system
stability caused by the RHP zero and parasitic elements in the
boost converter’s dynamics can be ignored in the design of
controller because of its narrow open-loop bandwidth. Transient
and frequency responses are presented. The performance of a
Posicast-based controller for a boost converter has been
investigated through simulation and verified by experiment. The
sensitivity of the system dynamical response to variations in
controller parameters was examined. The effect of load
resistance variation was also tested.
Keywords-Posicast; feedback; boost converter; digital control;
modeling uncertainty
I. INTRODUCTION
The output voltage of a boost converter is regulated using a
feedback control system. The converter’s nonlinear and lightly
damped dynamics, which are the function of load parameters
and duty cycle, make the control design difficult and
challenging. In addition, the right half plane (RHP) zero of the
boost converter’s small signal transfer function seriously
complicates the problem of stabilizing the control loop [1], and
special attention is required for the design of traditional PID
compensators. Advances in signal processing technology have
spurred research into new control techniques to improve
converter control. In this paper, a new control technique based
on the Posicast principle is proposed.
Classical Posicast is a feedforward control method used to
cancel the oscillatory behavior of a lightly damped system. It
was originally introduced by O. J. M. Smith in the late 1950’s
[2-3], and further studied by G. Cook in the early 1960’s [4].
Among many types of Posicast, half-cycle Posicast is the most
typical and simple. This method reshapes the reference input
into two smaller steps, one of which is delayed in time. The
initial step input causes the first peak of the oscillatory
response of the system to match the desired output value. The
delayed step input precisely cancels the remaining oscillation.
In effect, the system output will reach and maintain its desired
value in one-half of the natural period of the plant, thus the
name of half-cycle Posicast. Consider the step response in Fig.
1. This response is characterized by overshoot δ and the
This research was supported by the Center for Space Power and
Advanced Electronics with funds from NASA grant NCC8-237, Auburn
University, and the Center’s industrial partners.
0-7803-7768-0/03/$17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
damped response period Td . The block diagram shown in Fig.
2 describes the structure of classical “half-cycle” Posicast.
Classical Posicast is designed using knowledge of the step
response overshoot and damped response period. Frequency
response of the Posicast element 1 + P(s) is shown in Fig. 3. In
the frequency domain, half-cycle Posicast can be shown to
have an infinite number of zeros spaced at odd multiples of the
damped natural frequency [2-3]. Accurate knowledge of the
step response parameters yields a compensator in which the
lowest-frequency zeros cancel the pair of dominant poles in
plant dynamics. In summary, classical Posicast has the
potential to eliminate the oscillatory response of a lightly
damped system, but the drawback is sensitivity to modeling
errors since it is based on feedforward cancellation of
dynamics. More recently, N. C. Singer and W. P. Seering
proposed a preshaping technique as an extension of Posicast
control [5]. This method is known as very efficient and robust
to modeling uncertainty, thus it has attracted much attention.
The Posicast approach can be more useful if the parametric
y(t)
1+δ
1
Td/2 Td t
Figure 1. Step response of a lightly damped system
y
r u
Lightly
+ Damped
System
+
G(s)
δ sT d
−
1 +δ e 2
−1
Posicast = 1+P(s)
Figure 2. Classical structure of the half-cycle Posicast
990
 0
magnitude
The RHP zero in the dynamics results from the switching
-5
action of the converter, and can have an unfavorable effect for
some types of feedback controller. But here it can be neglected
in the design of controller. The undamped natural frequency
dB
-10

-15
ω n and the damping factor ζ are given by:
-20 -1 0 1
10 10 10
Hz
1
100
phase
ωn = (2)
LeC
50
degrees

0 1 Le
ζ = (3)
-50 2R C
-100 -1
10 10
Hz
0 1
10 From these two parameters, the damped natural period Td and
step response overshoot δ are computed as follows:
Figure 3. Frequency response of Posicast element 1 + P(s) for δ = 0.8, Td=1
2π
Td = (4)
sensitivity can be reduced. In this paper, a new method to take ωn 1 − ζ 2
advantage of Posicast, while addressing the sensitivity issue, is
proposed. 1−ζ 2
δ = e −ζπ / (5)
Specifically, a Posicast element is inserted into the
feedback system for the boost converter. This hybrid control Here Le is a function of D, so both parameters Td and δ vary
approach recently described in [6] enjoys the superior damping not only with load resistance R, but also with duty cycle D,
qualities of Posicast, but also reduces sensitivity to parametric which will vary to maintain a constant output voltage in the
uncertainty and load change through feedback. The new closed-loop voltage control application. Obviously, this makes
control system structure is illustrated in Fig. 4. the control design for the boost converter more difficult and
challenging. The function P(s) in the Posicast element is
defined by:

δ  −s 2d 
T
P( s) = e − 1 (6)
1+ δ  
 
The overall system characteristic polynomial using classical
half-cycle Posicast control is found by simply removing the
dominant lightly damped poles of the plant G(s). In the
proposed method, the closed-loop characteristic polynomial
Figure 4. Proposed hybrid feedback control using Posicast
Δ(s) is given by:
∆ ( s ) = 1 + C ( s )[1 + P( s )]G ( s ) (7)
II. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
A pure integrator-type compensator is used to eliminate
The transfer function of the boost converter is derived by steady-state errors:
the standard state-space averaging technique [1]: K
C (s) = (8)
Le s
) 1− s
vo ( s ) Vo R
= (1) Here we choose the gain K as large as possible to minimize
ˆ
d (s) DLeC 1 1
s2 + s + settling time while eliminating overshoot. The complete
CR LeC
hybrid controller transfer function is described by combining
Where the compensator C(s) and the Posicast transfer function as
follows:
Le = L /(1 − D) 2
Gc ( s ) = C ( s )[1 + P( s)]
Vo: converter output voltage
K  δ  − s Td 
 e 2 − 1 (9)
D: duty cycle = 1+
s  1+ δ  
  
L: converter inductance
Frequency response of the Posicast compensated function
C: converter capacitance
C ( s)[1 + P ( s )]G ( s ) for K = 9.5 is shown in Fig. 5. It can be
R: load resistance seen that the phase margin is about 67 degrees, and the gain
margin is approximately 14 dB. The open-loop bandwidth is

991
 TABLE I. PARAMETERS OF BOOST CONVERTER
Symbol Parameters Value Units
R Load Resistance 25 Ω
L Series Inductance 250 µH
Estimate Series Resistance
RL 10 mΩ
(ESR) of Inductor
C Capacitance 1056 µF

RC ESR of Capacitor 30 mΩ
Vin Input Voltage 5 V

Vout Output Voltage 12 V

Figure 5. Frequency response of the Posicast compensated function

C(s)[1+P(s)]G(s) for the boost converter when K = 9.5

about 200 rad/s. Here the Posicast compensator performs the

function of equalization. At the frequencies for which the
system gain is high, the compensator gain is low. Since the
Posicast-based compensated system has such a narrow open-
loop bandwidth, the effect of the RHP zero of the model occurs
at a high frequency outside the bandwidth. As a result, the
closed-loop stability will not be significantly affected.
Therefore, we can ignore the effect of the RHP zero in the
design of the controller. Similarly, the effect of parasitic
elements in the model also can be ignored in the design.
Furthermore, the high frequency noise is greatly suppressed in
the compensated system.

III. SIMULATION
Figure 6. Simulated output voltage, duty cycle and measurement noise for
Parameters of a prototype boost converter are listed in the ideal model of boost converter with Vin = 5V, Vout = 12V
Table I. Then the ideal model (without parasitic elements) of
the converter can be derived as:
)
vo ( s ) 1.3558 × 10 7 − 7.7967 × 10 2 s
= (10)
dˆ ( s ) s 2 + 37.8788s + 6.5867 × 105
Using equations (2) – (5), parameters of the Posicast element
can be calculated as Td = 7.74 ms and δ = 0.929. The
compensator gain K is selected as 9.5 to get the fastest response
without overshoot in the simulation. Simulated output voltage,
duty cycle and measurement noise are plotted in Fig. 6. It can
be seen that the setting time is about 14 ms. The effect of time
delay Td/2 in Posicast is noticeable in the control duty cycle at
time t = 3.87 ms, where there is an inflection in the plot.
The frequency response of the converter was also measured
using an analog network analyzer, and fitting the frequency
response data using MATLAB generates the following transfer
function for the converter:
)
vo ( s ) − 5.6956 × 10 −3 s 2 − 2.5589 × 10 2 s + 4.9831 × 10 6
= (11)
dˆ ( s ) s 2 + 82.525s + 5.4241 × 10 5
Figure 7. Simulated output voltage, duty cycle and measurement noise for
the practical model of boost converter with Vin = 5V, Vout = 12V
Controller parameters are recalculated using equation (2) – (5),

992
and the results are Td = 10.3 ms and δ = 0.119. The that changes in the Posicast parameters have very little effect
compensator gain K is still chosen as 9.5. Simulated output on the steady-state response of the converter.
voltage, duty cycle and measurement noise are plotted in Fig.
7. The settling time is still about 14 ms. B. Transient Response
The transient response is shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen
IV. DIGITAL IMPLEMENTATION that the settling time of the converter output voltage is about
14ms, which agrees with the simulated response plotted in Fig
The proposed hybrid controller in (9) can be easily
6. The effects on system dynamical response by each
implemented on a digital processor. Euler’s approximation
controller parameter are also explored and shown in Fig. 9 to
1 − z −1 Fig. 11. Obviously, the increase of the compensator gain K
s= and the z-transform operator z = e sT are used to
T will reduce the rise time of system output, while producing a
yield the approximate discrete-time controller transfer function: higher overshoot. This can be avoided by decreasing the gain.
The experiment also confirms that changes of other controller
 Td  parameters have only a very small effect on system dynamical
K T Kδ T − 
Gc ( z ) = + z  2T  (12) response, which verifies that the control method, Posicast in
1 + δ 1 − z −1 1 + δ 1 − z −1 feedback control, is robust to plant modeling uncertainty.
T is the sampling period of the digital controller. The notation Therefore, the drawback of parametric sensitivity inherent in
classical Posicast control is efficiently reduced by this hybrid
• represents the round operation. As an example, consider a controller. Besides, Fig. 12 shows that the Posicast
20 kHz sampling frequency and controller parameters ( Td = compensated converter maintains good transient response
10.3 ms, δ = 0.119) used in the simulation, then the delay step throughout a 4:1 range of load resistance, which is also a
N is: source of system modeling errors.
T 
N =  d  = 103 (13)
 2T  TABLE II. OUTPUT VOLTAGE VARIATION USING THE POSICAST
The resulting controller transfer function is: CONTROLLER WITH K = 5.5, δ = 0.119, Td =0.0103 S, LOAD R = 25 Ω, VREF =
12 V
1 z −103 Deviation Deviation
Gc ( z ) = 4.245 × 10 −4 + 5.051 × 10 −5 (14) Vin (V) Vout (V)
1 − z −1 1 − z −1 (mV) (%)
3 11.985 -15 -0.13
The corresponding difference equation is: 4 11.994 -6 -0.05
u (k ) = u (k − 1) + 4.245 ⋅ 10 −4 e(k ) + 5.051 ⋅ 10 −5 e(k − 103) (15) 5 11.997 -3 -0.03
6 11.997 -3 -0.03
Hence the time delay can be implemented by storing the 7 12.000 0 0
sampled error in controller memory and retrieve it for
8 12.000 0 0
computation after N delay steps. A first-in-first-out (FIFO)
queue is used to prevent the overflow of the memory address, 9 12.006 +6 +0.05
and the size of the queue is just N memory addresses. A Texas 10 12.010 +10 +0.08
Instruments TMS320F240 Digital Signal Processor (DSP) is
used to implement the control algorithm. The DSP’s built-in
timer governs the sampling period T and generates periodic
interrupts. An interrupt service routine is used to compute the
difference equation, update the storage queue for the time-
delay in the function 1 + P( s ) , and also update the output
control effort (duty cycle).

V. EXPERIMAENTAL RESULTS
The controller using Posicast within the feedback loop has
also been tested experimentally. Measurements were recorded
using a Tektronix TDS754D oscilloscope. The data were
transferred to an Excel spreadsheet for plotting multiple
responses on a single plot. In the experiment, the compensator
gain K was reduced to 5.5 to achieve the transient response
without overshoot.

A. Steady-state Response
Table II lists the converter output voltage for various input Figure 8. Step up responses with K = 5.5, δ = 0.119, Td/2 = 5.15 ms, Load R
voltages ranging from 3V to 10V. Experiments also confirm = 25 Ohms, ∆V = 4V.

993
 Figure 9. Step response for different compensator gain K. Fixed controller
parameters are δ = 0.119, Td/2 = 5.15 ms.
Figure 10. Step response for different overshoot value δ . Fixed controller
parameters are K = 5.5, Td/2 = 5.15 ms.
Figure 11. Step response for different half damped natural period Td/2 . Fixed
controller parameters are K = 5.5, δ = 0.119.
994
Figure 12. Step response for various load resistance R. Fixed Posicast
controller parameters are K = 5.5, δ = 0.119, Td/2 = 5.15 ms.
C. Comparison to PID control
PID-based control of the power converter requires some
algorithm modifications to achieve good transient and steady-
state performance [7]. In comparison, the proposed method has
been experimentally confirmed to not require any such
modification. The frequency response of the Posicast element
inherently reduced high frequency noise, and avoided
unfavorable effects on system stability caused by the RHP zero
and parasitic elements in the dynamics of the converter.
Experiments also confirm that the gain margin and phase
margin of the Posicast compensated system were improved.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
A Posicast-based controller has been applied to a boost
converter, and the results presented in this paper. The control
method uses a Posicast element within the feedback control
system to take advantage of Posicast’s superior damping
qualities, while reducing the sensitivity of classical feedforward
Posicast control. The Posicast elements Td and δ can be
straightforwardly computed from the dynamics of the boost
converter. A simple integral compensator with a single gain K
is used with the Posicast element to ensure the proper steady
state response. The design approach has been presented along
with a description of the digital implementation. The
experimental performance is consistent with that predicted in
simulation results. Plant dynamics uncertainty over a wide
range has little adverse effect on the proposed controller. The
compensated system maintains a good transient response
throughout a wide load range. Compared to PID control, the
proposed method has only a single compensator gain K to tune,
and the compensated system has improved gain margin and
phase margin. In summary, the authors’ experimental results
indicate that the hybrid Posicast-based controller is an effective
approach to output voltage regulation of a boost converter.
 REFERENCES
[1] R. P. Severns and G. Bloom, Modern DC-DC Swithmode Power
Converter Circuits, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1985.
[2] O. J. M. Smith, “Posicast control of damped oscillatory system,”
Proceeding of IRE, vol 45, pp. 1249-1255, 1957.
[3] O. J. M. Smith, Feedback Control Systems, McGraw-Hill, 1958, pp.
331-345.
[4] G. Cook, “An application of half-cycle Posicast,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, pp. 556-559, July 1966.
[5] N. C. Singer and W. P. Seering, “Preshaping command inputs to reduce
system vibration,” Trans. ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement and Control, vol 112, pp. 76-82, March 1990.
[6] J. Y. Hung, “Application of Posicast principles in feedback control,”
2002 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics,
L’Aquila, ITALY, July 2002, pp.500-504.
[7] Liping Guo, J. Y. Hung, and R. M. Nelms, “PID controller modification
to improve steady-state performance of digital controllers for buck and
boost converters,” 2002 Applied Power Electronics Conference, Dallas,
TX, March 10-14, 2002, pp.381-388.

995