{"id":14014,"date":"2016-05-26T21:31:38","date_gmt":"2016-05-26T21:31:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.iacdrive.com\/2016\/05\/26\/hysteretic-controller\/"},"modified":"2016-05-26T21:31:38","modified_gmt":"2016-05-26T21:31:38","slug":"hysteretic-controller","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/?p=14014","title":{"rendered":"Hysteretic controller"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>We can see that the hysteretic controller is a special case of other control techniques. For example, &#8220;sliding mode control&#8221; usually uses two state variables to determine one switching variable (switch ON or OFF). So the hysteretic controller is a special case of &#8220;1-dimensional&#8221; sliding mode. In general, there are many techniques under the name of &#8220;geometric control&#8221; that can be used to prove the stability of a general N-state system under a given switching rule. So I believe that you can apply some of these techniques to prove the stability of the hysteretic controller, although I have not tried to do this myself. The book &#8220;elements of power electronics&#8221; by Krein discusses that in chapter 17.<\/p>\n<p>But I can talk more about one technique that I have used and in my opinion is the most general and elegant technique for non-linear systems. It is based on Lyapunov stability theory. You can use this technique to determine a switching rule to a general circuit with an arbitrary number of switches and state variables. It can be applied to the simple case of the hysteretic controller (i.e. 1 state variable, 1 switching variable) to verify if the system is stable and what are the conditions for stability. I have done this and verified that it is possible to prove the stability of hysteretic controllers, imposing very weak constraints (and, of course, no linearization needed). In a nutshell, to prove the system stable, you have to find a Lyapunov function for it.<\/p>\n<p>What can expand is to go beyond a simple window comparator for hysteretic control.<\/p>\n<p>#1) control bands, or switching limits can be variable and also part of a loop, especially if one wants to guarantee a nearly fixed frequency.<\/p>\n<p>#2) using a latch or double latch after the comparator(s), one can define (remember) the state and define operations such as incorporating fixed Ton or Toff periods for additional time control&#8230; this permits the &#8220;voltage boost&#8221; scenario you previously said could not be done. This also prevents common &#8220;chaos&#8221; operation and noise susceptibility that others experience with simpler circuits.<\/p>\n<p>#3) additional logic can assure multiphase topologies locked to a system clock and compete very well with typical POL buck regulators for high-end processors that require high di\/dt response.<\/p>\n<p>Time or state domain control systems such as this, can have great advantages over typical topologies. There really is no faster control method that provides a quicker load response without complete predictive processing, yet that can also be applied to hysteretic control. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We can see that the hysteretic controller is a special case of other control techniques. For example, &#8220;sliding mode control&#8221; usually uses two state variables to determine one switching variable (switch ON or OFF). So the hysteretic controller is a special case of &#8220;1-dimensional&#8221; sliding mode. In general, there are many techniques under the name of &#8220;geometric control&#8221; that can be used to prove the stability of a general N-state system under a given switching rule. So I believe that you can apply some of these techniques to prove the stability of the hysteretic controller, although I have not tried to do this myself. The book &#8220;elements of power electronics&#8221; by Krein discusses that in chapter 17.<\/p>\n<p>But I can talk more about one technique that I have used and in my opinion is the most general and elegant technique for non-linear systems. It is based on Lyapunov stability theory. You can use this technique to determine a switching rule to a general circuit with an arbitrary number of switches and state variables. It can be applied to the simple case of the hysteretic controller (i.e. 1 state variable, 1 switching variable) to verify if the system is stable and what are the conditions for stability. I have done this and verified that it is possible to prove the stability of hysteretic controllers, imposing very weak constraints (and, of course, no linearization needed). In a nutshell, to prove the system stable, you have to find a Lyapunov function for it.<\/p>\n<p>What can expand is to go beyond a simple window comparator for hysteretic control.<\/p>\n<p>#1) control bands, or switching limits can be variable and also part of a loop, especially if one wants to guarantee a nearly fixed frequency.<\/p>\n<p>#2) using a latch or double latch after the comparator(s), one can define (remember) the state and define operations such as incorporating fixed Ton or Toff periods for additional time control&#8230; this permits the &#8220;voltage boost&#8221; scenario you previously said could not be done. This also prevents common &#8220;chaos&#8221; operation and noise susceptibility that others experience with simpler circuits.<\/p>\n<p>#3) additional logic can assure multiphase topologies locked to a system clock and compete very well with typical POL buck regulators for high-end processors that require high di\/dt response.<\/p>\n<p>Time or state domain control systems such as this, can have great advantages over typical topologies. There really is no faster control method that provides a quicker load response without complete predictive processing, yet that can also be applied to hysteretic control. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[67],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-iacdrive_blog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/iacdrive.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}