Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

A Building-Block Approach to State-Space Modeling of DC-DC Converter Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A complete DC-DC converter system model can be assembled from reusable building blocks by two standardized state-space connection operations, with no need to re-derive frequency-domain transfer functions when filters, loads, or control…

desk verdict A genuinely useful and mostly correct modular state-space composition method for DC-DC converters, but the closed-loop step misses D13 feedthrough corrections and needs a scope statement before it can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04594 v1 pith:TN5MVRXW submitted 2019-08-13 eess.SY cs.SY

Gernot Herbst This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords state-spaceaveragingsmall-signalmodelingDC-DCconverterstwo-portnetworksg-parametersmodularcontrolloopscascaded
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the tedious, error-prone workflow of re-deriving a DC-DC converter's small-signal model whenever filters, loads, or control loops are added can be replaced by a modular assembly process. It defines one generic two-port state-space model whose inputs are input voltage, output current, and control signals and whose outputs are input current and output voltage, and it provides two standardized connection operations: one attaches a controller and closes a loop, and one connects two subsystems in series. Every operation preserves the same model structure, so control-to-output, impedance, admittance, and gain transfer functions can be read off from a single model at any stage. If this works as claimed, engineers could build and maintain models of multiloop or cascaded converter systems by composing small, separately verified building blocks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generic two-port state-space model with inputs $v_{\mathrm{in}}(t)$, $i_{\mathrm{out}}(t)$, and $\mathrm{ctl}(t)$ and outputs $i_{\mathrm{in}}(t)$ and $v_{\mathrm{out}}(t)$: an inverse-hybrid (g-parameter) representation that treats input voltage and output current as independent variables. Two operations carry the argument: controller insertion, which augments the state vector and updates the $A$ matrix via $A_{\mathrm{CL}} = A_{\mathrm{OL}} - B_{\mathrm{OL}} K$ with $K$ choosing the controlled variable; and series connection, whose matrix formulas (13)-(15) eliminate the shared internal voltage and current between source and load. Their defining property is that each operation returns another model of the same two-port structure, which is what makes the frequency-domain extraction formulas collected in Table 2 valid at every modeling stage.

What would settle it

Take a converter model whose $D$ matrix has a nonzero $D_{13}$ or $D_{23}$ term, apply the closed-loop update $A_{\mathrm{CL}} = A_{\mathrm{OL}} - B_{\mathrm{OL}} K$ with $B$, $C$, $D$ unchanged, and compare the resulting output impedance or control-to-output gain with the exact model obtained by substituting the feedback law directly; any measurable discrepancy refutes the generality of the operation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-port inverse-hybrid (g-parameter) state-space description, augmented with control inputs, is closed under the two operations needed to build practical converter systems: adding a controller and series-connecting a source with a load. Closing a loop is done by augmenting the state vector with the controller states, connecting the controller output to the converter control input, and updating the system matrix through $A_{\mathrm{CL}} = A_{\mathrm{OL}} - B_{\mathrm{OL}} K$, where $K$ selects the variable to feed back; $B$, $C$, and $D$ are left unchanged under the stated assumption that direct feedthrough from the control input to the controlled variable is negligible. Series-connecting two subsystems is done by eliminating the shared internal voltage and current with the coupling formulas (13)-(15), which produce a combined model of the same two-port form. Because the operations preserve the structure, one state-space model represents the whole system at every stage, and the transfer functions listed in Table 2 can be extracted from it at any point.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the control input has no direct feedthrough to the measured controlled variable or to the input current, because the closed-loop construction updates only the system matrix $A$ while leaving $B$, $C$, and $D$ fixed; if either direct path is nonzero, the closed-loop model is only approximate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After adding an input filter, a non-trivial load, or another converter stage, the existing model is updated by a connection operation instead of a full re-derivation of the state-space equations.
  • Control loops can be closed one at a time, innermost first, with control-to-output and impedance transfer functions available after each step.
  • The same connection rules apply to passive elements, controlled converters, and entire series-connected systems, so a model built once can be reused as a building block in a larger system.
  • Because the operations preserve the two-port structure and linearity, all small-signal frequency-domain analyses remain valid at any modeling stage.
  • Controller tuning can take source and load interactions into account directly, since the impedance seen at any port is extractable from the same model at any point in the assembly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper, the series-connection formulas are pure matrix arithmetic, so the entire assembly procedure could be automated: a user would supply building-block matrices and a connection list, and a simple computer-algebra program would generate the full model and all Table 2 transfer functions.
  • The paper's closed-loop update is exact only when the feedthrough terms $D_{13}$ and $D_{23}$ vanish; a natural generalization would be to substitute the feedback law algebraically into the output equations as well, covering converters with nonzero direct control feedthrough.
  • Because the operations do not depend on the physical nature of the building blocks, the same two-port assembly rules could be tried on averaged models of other power-electronic subsystems, such as bidirectional converters or inverter input stages, as long as those models fit the same g-parameter state-space form.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a modular state-space modeling framework for DC-DC converter systems. It defines a generic two-port state-space model with an additional control input, a controller model, and two standardized connection operations: adding controllers and closing control loops (Section 3) and series-connecting two two-port subsystems (Section 4). In Section 6, three examples (a multiloop buck converter, a boost converter with input filter, and a cascaded boost-buck system) are built from these operations and validated against time-domain circuit simulations. The paper claims that control-oriented and impedance transfer functions can be extracted from the single resulting model at any modeling stage, open or closed loop, single converter or series connection of converters.

Significance. If correct, the framework would be a practically useful way to assemble and maintain converter system models without re-deriving state-space equations. The series-connection derivation leading to Equations (13)–(15) is algebraically sound, and the examples are validated against independent circuit simulations with no fitted parameters, which is a real strength. However, the control-loop operation in Section 3 is mathematically incomplete for the general controller and converter models stated, which undermines the claim that impedance transfer functions can be extracted after loop closure in all cases. Since the main contribution is the generality of the two connection operations, this gap is load-bearing and needs to be fixed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The open-loop model is incomplete. Substituting the controller output u(t)=CC xC(t)+DC e(t) into the two-port model (2) gives iin = C1 x + D13(CC xC + DC e) + D11 vin + D12 iout and vout = C2 x + D23(CC xC + DC e) + D21 vin + D22 iout. Therefore COL in (5) should be [C1, D13 CC; C2, D23 CC], not [C1, 0; C2, 0] as printed. As written, the open-loop model drops the contribution of the controller states to both outputs whenever D13 or D23 is nonzero, which occurs for buck-type converters where iin depends on the duty cycle (D13 = IL ≠ 0). This affects any input-current or input-admittance transfer function extracted from the open-loop model.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (6) and (8)] The closed-loop construction is also incomplete. If the feedback variable is the output voltage, the error is e = r − vout with vout = C2 x + D21 vin + D22 iout + D23 ctl, not e = r − C2 x unless D21 = D22 = D23 = 0. The K-matrix choice in (8) only feeds back C2 x. Consequently, even with the paper's assumption D23 ≈ 0, the closed-loop state and output equations miss the terms −BOL,3 D21 vin, −BOL,3 D22 iout, and the corresponding DOL corrections. The sentence 'The B, C, D matrices of the open-loop and closed-loop case are identical' is thus correct only under additional unstated conditions (e.g., D13 = D21 = D22 = 0 and DC = 0). Since Table 2 promises extraction of Zout, Yin, and other transfer functions at any modeling stage, this is a load-bearing gap rather than a cosmetic one.
  3. [Section 6 and Appendix C] The numerical examples do not exercise the problematic terms in the general loop-closing operation. All controller models in Appendix C have DC = 0, and the boost model in (18) has D13 = 0; the buck converter is cited from Reference [27] rather than given, so the reader cannot check whether D13 is nonzero. The time-domain validations compare inductor current and output voltage (state variables or outputs with small feedthrough), but never the input current iin after loop closure. Thus the examples are consistent with a restricted case and do not demonstrate the claimed generality. I recommend adding a benchmark with D13 ≠ 0 and/or DC ≠ 0, or explicitly narrowing the scope of Section 3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Many DOIs in the reference list appear garbled (e.g., 'doi:1A.11AJ/...' in [1], [2], and others); these should be corrected to the standard DOI format.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (15)] In the line defining the abbreviations, the term 'D1 11L' appears to be a typo for DL11; the notation should be fixed.
  3. [Section 6.1] The superscript notation for 'I2 control' is inconsistent (sometimes rendered as 'I2' and sometimes as 'I²'); please standardize.
  4. [Figure 8] The caption states that solid and dashed lines correspond to 'with input filter' and 'without input filter', but the figure legend is not explicit; please make the line styles unambiguous in the figure itself.
  5. [General terminology] The abstract uses 'cascaded converters' while the main text predominantly uses 'series connections of converters'; consider unifying the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the connection operations are derived algebraically from the stated two-port models and validated against independent circuit simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a set of standardized operations for connecting two-port state-space models. The series-connection formulas in Section 4 are obtained by direct algebraic substitution of the terminal constraints vL_in = vS_out and iS_out = -iL_in into the source and load state equations, with no target result assumed and no fitted parameters. The closed-loop construction in Section 3 uses the standard state-feedback expression ACL = AOL - BOL*K with B, C, D unchanged; this is a stated algebraic choice rather than a circular one. The paper explicitly acknowledges the assumption D23 ≈ 0 for voltage-mode control, and while the treatment of D13 feedthrough is arguably incomplete as a general procedure, that is a correctness limitation, not circularity. The validation examples compare the assembled state-space models against time-domain circuit simulations without adjusting any model parameters to match those simulations, so the predictions are not forced by fitting. External converter models from the literature are used as building blocks as claimed, and the paper does not rename any known result as a new derivation. Therefore there are no load-bearing steps that reduce to their own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formulas (13)-(15) contain no fitted constants; they are exact algebraic consequences of the g-parameter two-port equations. The method inherits the assumptions of the building-block models it consumes: linearity of small-signal models, validity of the g-parameter form, a well-posed algebraic loop at connection, and negligible direct feedthrough when closing loops. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All converter and filter subsystems can be represented by linear time-invariant state-space two-port models in inverse-hybrid (g-parameter) form with inputs vin, iout, ctl and outputs iin, vout.
    Sections 2.1-2.2 assume every building block can be written as (1) or (2); this is inherited from averaged small-signal modeling practice.
  • domain assumption The series connection is well-posed, meaning the scalar 1 + D11^L * D22^S is nonzero.
    Equations (11) and (12) divide by this scalar; no singularity or ill-conditioning treatment is given in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Direct feedthrough from the control input to the controlled variable is negligible when closing a loop.
    Section 3 states D23 approximately 0 before equation (6). Exactness of the closed-loop output equation additionally requires D13 = 0, which is not stated.
  • domain assumption Controllers are SISO linear continuous-time state-space systems with a single error input and a single control output.
    Section 2.3, equation (3); digital controllers or multi-input multi-output controllers are outside the stated scope.
  • domain assumption The converter building blocks imported from cited references, such as the PCM buck model from reference [27] and two-port models from references [30] and [34], are valid averaged small-signal models at the stated operating points.
    Appendix B delegates model accuracy to prior publications; this paper does not independently re-derive or validate those building-block models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Building-Block Approach to State-Space Modeling of DC-DC Converter Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TN5MVRXW

@misc{pith2026190804594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Building-Block Approach to State-Space Modeling of DC-DC Converter Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TN5MVRXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04594}
}
read the original abstract

Small-signal models of DC-DC converters are often based on a state-space averaging approach, from which both control-oriented and other frequency-domain characteristics, such as input or output impedance, can be derived. Updating these models when extending the converter by filters or non-trivial loads, or adding control loops, can become a tedious task, however. To simplify this potentially error-prone process, a modular modeling approach is being proposed in this article. It consists of small state-space models for certain building blocks of a converter system on the one hand, and standardized operations for connecting these subsystem models to an overall converter system model on the other hand. The resulting state-space system model builds upon a two-port converter description and allows the extraction of control-oriented and impedance characteristics at any modeling stage, be it open loop or closed loop, single converter or series connections of converters. The ease of creating more complex models enabled by the proposed approach is also demonstrated with examples comprising multiple control loops or cascaded converters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. illustrates the definition of input and output voltages and currents for a generic two-port system. Examples for modeling passive subsystems of a converter system are given in Appendix A. iin vin iout vout Two Port Network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-port network description consisting of three subsystems: input filter, converter (with a control input ctl), and the actual load. In this article, a solution is presented to create a complete system model for arbitrary series connec￾tions of converter subsystems. The generic model ingredients have already been presented in Section 2.1 (passive components), Section 2.2 (converters), and Section 2.3 (controllers).… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Interfaces of the two-port network models with control inputs when adding a controller to a converter. (a) Open-loop case. (b) Closed-loop case. In order to obtain the open-loop model, the state variable vector of the converter model must be enhanced by the state variables of the controller model. In general, a common model structure of the open-loop and closed-loop models can be given as follows in (4), with subscr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Series connection of two two-port networks (source and load). The control inputs ctlS/L(t) are optional and only present if source or load contain at least one converter, respectively. The equations of the resulting model can be found by replacing the inner terminal va…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of a reference step 2.4 A → 2.0 A at t = 0 s on the inductor current of the buck converter from example Section 6.1 with closed I2-current loop. As a second test, a reference voltage step is performed using the outer voltage control loop (i.e., with the complete…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reference step 13 V → 12 V at t = 0 s of the buck converter from example Section 6.1 with closed voltage loop and underlying I2 current control. Finally, +25% load step is being applied. The results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Input and output impedance of the boost converter from example Section 6.2, with closed voltage loop, both with input filter (solid lines) and without input filter (dashed lines). Therefore, a time-domain simulation of a +100% load step at the output will be performed …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Impact of a 100% load step 1.2 A → 2.4 A at t = 0 s on the output voltage of the boost converter from example Section 6.2 with closed voltage loop, both with input filter (solid lines) and without input filter (dashed lines). For better comparability, the circuit simul…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Two-port view of a series connection of boost and buck converter stages. In both stages, the filter elements L and C are being modeled with equivalent series resistances (ESR). As a small example of the possibilities offered by the all-encompassing state-space model, …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of a 25% output load step 2.4 A → 3.0 A at t = 0 s of the series-connected buck stage from example Section 6.3 on the intermediate output voltage of the boost stage. For better comparability the circuit simulation result was filtered (moving average) to remove …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Two-port network subsystems for passive elements. (a) Resistive load. (b) LC filter. As a side note it can be stated that manually creating a model for a two-stage LC filter is not necessary. A benefit of the connection method presented in Section 4 will be that one c…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two-port view of an unterminated boost converter stage. This model is also used and compared against time-domain circuit simulations in the examples pre￾sented in Section 6.2 (boost converter with input filter) and Section 6.3 (series-connected boost and buck stages).…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Smithson and Sheldon S

    Sean C. Smithson and Sheldon S. Williamson. A unified state-space model of constant-frequency current-mode controlled power converters in continuous conduction mode. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 62(7):4514–4524, 2015. doi:1A.11AJ/eIE.CA15.CE1C51E

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Controller design method for a cascaded converter system comprised of two DC-DC converters considering the effects of mutual interactions

    Reza Ahmadi and Mehdi Ferdowsi. Controller design method for a cascaded converter system comprised of two DC-DC converters considering the effects of mutual interactions. In2012 Twenty- Seventh Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC) , pages 1838–1844,

    work page

  3. [2]

    Modeling closed-loop input and output impedances of DC-DC power converters operating inside DC distribution systems

    Reza Ahmadi and Mehdi Ferdowsi. Modeling closed-loop input and output impedances of DC-DC power converters operating inside DC distribution systems. In 2014 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), pages 1131–1138, 2014. doi:1A.11AJ/RPET.CA1E.GIADEEJ

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Analyzing stability issues in a cascaded converter system comprised of two voltage-mode controlled DC-DC converters

    Reza Ahmadi, Darren Paschedag, and Mehdi Ferdowsi. Analyzing stability issues in a cascaded converter system comprised of two voltage-mode controlled DC-DC converters. In 2011 Twenty- Sixth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), pages 1769–1775, 2011. doi:1A.11AJ/RPET.CA11.57EEIDG

    work page 2011

  5. [4]

    Behavioral modeling for parallel- and cascade-connected DC-DC converters

    Husan Ali, Xiancheng Zheng, Haider Zaman, Huamei Liu, and Xiaohua Wu. Behavioral modeling for parallel- and cascade-connected DC-DC converters. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers , 28(4), 2019. doi:1A.11EC/dAC1I1CGG1J5AA5IA

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    System-level black-box DC-to- DC converter models

    Luis Arnedo, Rolando Burgos, Dushan Boroyevich, and Fred Wang. System-level black-box DC-to- DC converter models. In 2009 Twenty-Fourth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), pages 1476–1481, 2009. doi:1A.11AJ/RPET.CAAJ.EIACIG1

    work page 2009

  7. [6]

    Designing Control Loops for Linear and Switching Power Supplies: A Tutorial Guide

    Christophe Basso. Designing Control Loops for Linear and Switching Power Supplies: A Tutorial Guide . Artech House, Boston, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    Switch-Mode Power Supplies: SPICE Simulations and Practical Designs

    Christophe Basso. Switch-Mode Power Supplies: SPICE Simulations and Practical Designs . McGraw- Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2 edition, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Why ideal constant power loads are not the worst case condition from a control standpoint

    Marco Cupelli, Lin Zhu, and Antonello Monti. Why ideal constant power loads are not the worst case condition from a control standpoint. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 6(6):2596–2606, 2015. doi:1A.11AJ/edG.CA1E.CDG1GDA

    2015

  2. [9]

    Lee, and Dong Dong

    Igor Cvetkovic, Dushan Boroyevich, Paolo Mattavelli, Fred C. Lee, and Dong Dong. Untermi- nated small-signal behavioral model of DC-DC converters. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 28(4):1870–1879, 2013. doi:1A.11AJ/ePEL.CA1C.CC15A5G

    2013

  3. [10]

    Kazimierczuk

    Dariusz Czarkowski and Marian K. Kazimierczuk. Energy-conservation approach to modeling PWM DC-DC converters. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , 29(3):1059–1063,

  4. [11]

    Numerical state-space average-value modeling of PWM DC-DC converters operating in DCM and CCM

    Ali Davoudi, Juri Jatskevich, and Tom De Rybel. Numerical state-space average-value modeling of PWM DC-DC converters operating in DCM and CCM. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , 21(4):1003–1012, 2006. doi:1A.11AJ/ePEL.CAAG.I7GIEI

    2006

  5. [12]

    A black-box mod- eling approach for DC nanogrids

    Airan Francés, Rafael Asensi, Oscar García, Roberto Prieto, and Javier Uceda. A black-box mod- eling approach for DC nanogrids. In 2016 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), pages 1624–1631, 2016. doi:1A.11AJ/RPET.CA1G.7EGIAIE

    2016

  6. [13]

    How to model a DC microgrid: Towards an automated solution

    Airan Francés, Rafael Asensi, Oscar García, Roberto Prieto, and Javier Uceda. How to model a DC microgrid: Towards an automated solution. In 2017 IEEE Second International Conference on DC Microgrids (ICDCM), pages 609–616, 2017. doi:1A.11AJ/ITDTM.CA17.IAA111A

    2017

  7. [14]

    Modeling elec- tronic power converters in smart DC microgrids—An overview

    Airan Francés, Rafael Asensi, Oscar García, Roberto Prieto, and Javier Uceda. Modeling elec- tronic power converters in smart DC microgrids—An overview. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 9(6):6274–6287, 2018. doi:1A.11AJ/edG.CA17.C7A7DE5

    2018

  8. [15]

    Power exchange among microgrids using modular-isolated bidirectional DC-DC converter

    Reza Haghmaram, Farzad Sedaghati, and Reza Ghafarpour. Power exchange among microgrids using modular-isolated bidirectional DC-DC converter. Electrical Engineering, 99(1):441–454, 2017. doi:1A.1AA7/sAACAC-A1G-AED7-7 . A Building-Block Approach to State-Space Modeling of DC-DC ...

    2017

  9. [16]

    Synthesis of canonical elements for power processing in DC distribution systems using cascaded converters and sliding-mode control

    Reham Haroun, Angel Cid-Pastor, Abdelali El Aroudi, and Luis Martíinez-Salamero. Synthesis of canonical elements for power processing in DC distribution systems using cascaded converters and sliding-mode control. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 29(3):1366–1381, 2014. d...

    2014

  10. [17]

    Hung, and R

    Siyu He, John Y. Hung, and R. Mark Nelms. Small-signal modeling of I2 average current mode control. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , 31(5):3849–3858, 2016. doi:1A.11AJ/ePEL.CA15. CE5JJ1C

    2016

  11. [18]

    A novel stability analysis method based on Floquet theory for cascaded DC-DC converters system

    Hong Li, Jianing Shang, Xiaojie You, Trillion Zheng, Bo Zhang, and Jinhu Lü. A novel stability analysis method based on Floquet theory for cascaded DC-DC converters system. In2015 IEEE En- ergy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE) , pages 2679–2683, 2015. doi:1A.11AJ/ETTE...

    2015

  12. [19]

    Analysis, simulation and experimental evaluation of constant-frequency trailing-edge-modulated I2 average current-mode control

    Ruqi Li, Kan Seto, Jessica Kiefer, and Sean Li. Analysis, simulation and experimental evaluation of constant-frequency trailing-edge-modulated I2 average current-mode control. In 2016 IEEE 8th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference (IPEMC-ECCE Asia) , pa...

    2016

  13. [20]

    Two-port characterization of PWM voltage regulators at low frequencies.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 35(3):444–450, 1988

    Piero Giuseppe Maranesi, Valerio Tavazzi, and Vincenzo Varoli. Two-port characterization of PWM voltage regulators at low frequencies.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 35(3):444–450, 1988. doi:1A.11AJ/E1.D1CA

    1988

  14. [21]

    Some new results on the averaging theory approach for the analy- sis of power electronic converters.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 65(12):9367–9377, 2018

    Santolo Meo and Luisa Toscano. Some new results on the averaging theory approach for the analy- sis of power electronic converters.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 65(12):9367–9377, 2018. doi:1A.11AJ/eIE.CA1I.CIC1GCA

    2018

  15. [22]

    A general unified approach to modelling switching- converter power stages

    Robert David Middlebrook and Slobodan ´Cuk. A general unified approach to modelling switching- converter power stages. In 1976 IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference , pages 18–34, 1976. doi:1A.11AJ/PEdT.1J7G.7A7CIJ5

    1976

  16. [23]

    Stability analysis of cascaded DC-DC power electronic system

    Veerachary Mummadi and Bala Sudhakar Singamaneni. Stability analysis of cascaded DC-DC power electronic system. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 4(6):763–770, 2009. doi:1A.1AAC/tee.CAE7I

    2009

  17. [24]

    Petrovi´ c and Aleksandar Ž

    Trajko B. Petrovi´ c and Aleksandar Ž. Raki´ c. Linear robust approach to DC/DC converter modeling—I: Deterministic switching. Electrical Engineering, 86(5):267–273, 2004. doi:1A.1AA7/ sAACAC-AAD-AC1A-G

    2004

  18. [25]

    Control design and loop gain analysis of DC-to- DC converters intended for general load subsystems

    Syam Kumar Pidaparthy and Byungcho Choi. Control design and loop gain analysis of DC-to- DC converters intended for general load subsystems. Mathematical Problems in Engineering , 2015. doi:1A.1155/CA15/ECGD15

    2015

  19. [26]

    Modeling, control, and implementation of DC-DC converters for variable frequency opera- tion

    Robert Priewasser, Matteo Agostinelli, Christoph Unterrieder, Stefano Marsili, and Mario Hue- mer. Modeling, control, and implementation of DC-DC converters for variable frequency opera- tion. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 29(1):287–301, 2014. doi:1A.11AJ/ePEL.CA1D.CCEI751

    2014

  20. [28]

    Mitchell, Matthew F

    Jian Sun, Daniel M. Mitchell, Matthew F. Greuel, and Philip T. Krein. Averaged modeling of PWM converters operating in discontinuous conduction mode. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , 16(4):482–492, 2001. doi:1A.11AJ/GD.JD1A5C

    2001

  21. [29]

    Unified average and small-signal modeling of direct-on-time control

    Teuvo Suntio. Unified average and small-signal modeling of direct-on-time control. IEEE Transac- tions on Industrial Electronics, 53(1):287–295, 2006. doi:1A.11AJ/eIE.CAA5.IGCCC1

    2006

  22. [30]

    Dynamic Profile of Switched-Mode Converter: Modeling, Analysis and Control

    Teuvo Suntio. Dynamic Profile of Switched-Mode Converter: Modeling, Analysis and Control . Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    Dynamic modeling and analysis of PCM-controlled DCM-operating buck converters—a reexamination

    Teuvo Suntio. Dynamic modeling and analysis of PCM-controlled DCM-operating buck converters—a reexamination. Energies, 11(5), 2018. doi:1A.DDJA/en11A51CG7. 18 Gernot Herbst

    2018

  24. [32]

    On dynamic modeling of PCM-controlled converters—buck converter as an ex- ample

    Teuvo Suntio. On dynamic modeling of PCM-controlled converters—buck converter as an ex- ample. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics , 33(6):5502–5518, 2018. doi:1A.11AJ/ePEL.CA17. C7D7G7J

    2018

  25. [33]

    Modeling and analysis of a PCM-controlled boost converter designed to operate in DCM

    Teuvo Suntio. Modeling and analysis of a PCM-controlled boost converter designed to operate in DCM. Energies, 12(1), 2019. doi:1A.DDJA/en1CA1AAAE

    2019

  26. [34]

    Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2017

    Teuvo Suntio, Tuomas Messo, and Joonas Puukko.Power Electronic Converters: Dynamics and Control in Conventional and Renewable Energy Applications. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Dynamic char- acterization of power electronic interfaces

    Teuvo Suntio, Jukka Viinamäki, Juha Jokipii, Tuomas Messo, and Alon Kuperman. Dynamic char- acterization of power electronic interfaces. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, 2(4):949–961, 2014. doi:1A.11AJ/JEdePE.CA1E.CD1D7AE

    2014

  28. [36]

    A comparison of stability analysis of constant power load with detailed model in DC microgrids

    Hesamoddin Mazaheri Tehrani, Airan Francés, Rafael Asensi, and Javier Uceda. A comparison of stability analysis of constant power load with detailed model in DC microgrids. In 2018 7th In- ternational Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), pages 487...

    2018

  29. [37]

    Optimum feedback amplifier design for control systems

    Harlan Dean Venable. Optimum feedback amplifier design for control systems. Venable Technical Paper #3, Venable Industries, Austin, TX

  30. [38]

    Effect of control method on impedance-based interactions in a buck converter.IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 28(11):5311–5322, 2013

    Sanna Kaarina Vesti, Teuvo Suntio, Jesús Ángel Oliver, Roberto Prieto, and José Antonio Cobos. Effect of control method on impedance-based interactions in a buck converter.IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 28(11):5311–5322, 2013. doi:1A.11AJ/ePEL.CA1D.CCE7ECC

    2013

  31. [39]

    Simplified analysis of PWM converters using model of PWM switch

    Vatché Vorpérian. Simplified analysis of PWM converters using model of PWM switch. part I: Continuous conduction mode. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 26(3):490–496,

  32. [40]

    Modeling PWM DC/DC converters out of basic converter units

    Tasi-Fu Wu and Yu-Kai Chen. Modeling PWM DC/DC converters out of basic converter units. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 13(5):870–881, 1998. doi:1A.11AJ/GD.71CCJE

    1998

  33. [41]

    Lee, Paolo Mattavelli, and Pei-Hsin Liu

    Yingyi Yan, Fred C. Lee, Paolo Mattavelli, and Pei-Hsin Liu. I2 average current mode control for switching converters. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 29(4):2027–2036, 2014. doi:1A.11AJ/ ePEL.CA1D.CCG5DI1

    2027

  34. [42]

    Dynamic properties of interconnected power systems - a system theoretic approach

    Kai Zenger, Ali Altowati, and Teuvo Suntio. Dynamic properties of interconnected power systems - a system theoretic approach. In 2006 1st IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications , pages 1–6, 2006. doi:1A.11AJ/ITIER.CAAG.C571J7

    2006

  35. [43]

    A generalized model of nonisolated multi- phase DC-DC converter based on novel switching period averaging method

    Difu Zhan, Li Wei, Yicheng Zhang, and Yongtao Yao. A generalized model of nonisolated multi- phase DC-DC converter based on novel switching period averaging method. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 30(9):5181–5191, 2015. doi:1A.11AJ/ePEL.CA1E.CDG1A1J

    2015

  36. [1990]

    doi:1A.11AJ/7.1AG1CG

  37. [1993]

    doi:1A.11AJ/7.CCAJ55

  38. [2012]

    doi:1A.11AJ/RPET.CA1C.G1GGA7C

  39. [2016]

    doi:1A.11AJ/IPEMT.CA1G.751CG17

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.