Output Impedance Correction Circuit (OICC): A New Concept to Improve the Dynamic Response of DC/DC Converters with Additional Energy Path

Development of new technologies allows engineers to push the performance of the integrated circuits to its limits. New generations of processors, DSPs or FPGAs are able to process information with high speed and high consumption or to wait in low power mode with minimum possible consumption. This huge variation in power consumption and the short time needed to change from one level to another, affect the specifications of the Voltage Regulated Module (VRM) that supplies the IC. Furthermore, additional mandatory features, such as Adaptive Voltage Positioning (AVP) and Dynamic Voltage Scaling (DVS), impose opposite trends on the design of the VRM power stage. In order to cope with high load-step amplitudes, the output capacitor of the VRM power stage output filter is drastically oversized, penalizing power density and the efficiency during the DVS operation. Therefore, the ongoing research trend is directed to improve the dynamic response of the VRM while reducing the size of the output capacitor. The output capacitor reduction leads to a smaller cost and longer life-time of the system since the big bulk capacitors, usually implemented with OSCON capacitors, may not be needed to achieve the desired dynamic behavior. An additional advantage is that, by reducing the output capacitance, dynamic voltage scaling (DVS) can be performed faster and with smaller stress on the power stage, since the needed amount of charge to change the output voltage is smaller. The dynamic behavior of the system with a linear control (Voltage mode control, VMC, Peak Current Mode Control, PCMC,.) is limited by the converter switching frequency and filter size. The reduction of the output capacitor can be achieved by increasing the switching frequency of the converter, thus increasing the bandwidth of the system, and/or by applying advanced non-linear controls. Applying nonlinear control, the system variables get saturated in order to reach the new steady-state in a minimum time, thus the output filter, more specifically the output inductor current slew-rate, determines the output voltage response. Therefore, by reducing the output inductor value, the inductor current reaches faster the new steady state, so a smaller amount of charge is taken from the output capacitor during the transient. The drawback of this approach is that the system efficiency is penalized due to increased switching losses and RMS currents. In order to achieve both the output capacitor reduction and high system efficiency, while satisfying strict dynamic specifications, a Multiphase converter system is adopted as a standard for VRM applications. In order to ensure the current sharing among the phases, the multiphase converter is usually implemented with current mode control. In order to overcome the limitation imposed by the output filter, the second possibility to reduce the output capacitor is to apply Topologic modifications of the basic power stage topology in order to increase the slew-rate of the inductor current and, therefore, reduce the transient duration. Since the transient is reduced, smaller amount of charge is taken from the output capacitor under the same load current, thus, the output capacitor can be reduced to achieve the same output voltage deviation. The third possibility to reduce the output capacitor of the converter is to introduce an additional energy path (AEP) to compensate the charge unbalance of the output capacitor, consequently reducing the transient time and output voltage deviation. Doing so, during the steady-state operation the system has high efficiency because the main low-bandwidth converter is designed to operate at moderate switching frequency, to meet the static requirements, whereas the dynamic behavior during the transients is determined by the highbandwidth auxiliary energy path. The auxiliary energy path can be implemented as a resistive path, as a Linear regulator, LR, or as a switching converter. The first two implementations provide higher bandwidth, at the expense of increasing losses during the transient. On the other hand, the switching converter implementation presents lower bandwidth, limited by the auxiliary converter switching frequency, though it produces smaller losses compared to the two previous implementations. Depending on the application, the implementation and the control strategy of the system, there is a variety of proposed solutions in the State-of-the-Art (SoA), having different features where one solution offers some advantages over the others, but also some disadvantages. In general, an ideal additional energy path system should have the following features: 1. The impact on the system losses should be minimal. During its operation, the AEP generates additional losses, thus ideally, the AEP should operate for a short period of time, only when the transient is occurring; the other option is to have the AEP constantly on, but due to the inductor current ripple compensation at the output, unnecessary losses are generated. 2. The AEP should be activated nearly instantaneously to prevent bigger output voltage deviation. To achieve near instantaneous activation, the converter system can be informed by the load prior to the load-step or the system can observe the output capacitor current, which is the first system state variable that reacts on the load current perturbation. In this manner, the AEP is turned on with near zero output voltage error, providing smaller output voltage deviation. 3. The AEP should be deactivated once the new steady state is reached to avoid additional settling transients. Most of the SoA solutions estimate duration of the transient which may cause additional transient if the estimation is not performed correctly (e.g. if the main converter inductor current has higher or lower value than needed, the slow regulator of the main converter needs to compensate the difference after the AEP is deactivated). Other SoA solutions are observing state variables, ensuring that the system reaches the new steady state or they are informed by the load. 4. During the transient, at least one subsystem, either the main converter or the AEP, should be in closed-loop. Implementing a closed loop system, preferably the AEP subsystem, due its higher bandwidth, increases the robustness under system tolerances and circuit parasitic. In addition, the AEP can operate with any type of load. The solutions that operate in open loop usually perform minimum time charge balance control, thus reducing the transient length and minimizing the impact on the losses, however they are very sensitive to tolerances and parasitics. 5. The AEP should inject current at the output in a controlled manner, thus reducing the risk of high and potentially damaging currents and increasing robustness on the input voltage deviation. This issue is mainly related to the systems where AEP is implemented as auxiliary converter. The auxiliary converter is designed for small power and, as such, the MOSFETs are rated for small power/currents. If the current is not controlled, due to the some unpredicted spike in input voltage caused by some other part of the system (e.g. different converter), it may lead to a current spike in auxiliary current which will cause the perturbation of the output voltage and even failure of the switching components of auxiliary converter. In the case when the current is controlled, using peak CMC or Hysteretic Window CMC, the auxiliary converter has inherent feed-forwarding of the input voltage in current control and the current is defined and limited. Furthermore, if the solution employs charge balance control, the system may perform poorly if the input voltage has different value than the nominal, causing that AEP injects/extracts more/less charge than needed. 6. Scalability of the system to multiphase converters. As commented previously, in VRM applications, due to the high load currents, the main converters are implemented as multiphase to redistribute losses among the modules, lowering temperature stress of the components. To ensure the current sharing, usually a Current Mode Control (CMC) is employed. The SoA solutions that are implemented with VMC are limited to a single stage implementation. This thesis proposes a novel control method of the energy flow through the AEP and the main converter system. The proposed concept relays on a controlled injection of the auxiliary current at the output node where the instantaneous current value is n-1 times bigger than the output capacitor current with appropriate directions. Doing so, the AEP creates an equivalent n times bigger virtual capacitor at the output, thus reducing the output impedance. Due to the fact that the proposed concept reduces the output impedance using the AEP, it has been named the Output Impedance Correction Circuit (OICC) concept. The concept is developed for a multiphase CMC synchronous buck converter (including a single phase implementation), operating with a constant output voltage and with AVP feature. Further, it is extended to a single phase VMC synchronous buck converter. During the operation, the main converter voltage loop and the OICC subsystem capacitor current loop is constantly closed, increasing the robustness under system tolerances and circuit parasitic and allowing the system to operate with any load-current shape or pattern. According to the proposed control method, the system operates in two states: during the steady-state the system is in the Idle state and the OICC subsystem is deactivated, while during the load-step transient the system is in the Active state and the OICC subsystem is activated in order to reduce the output impedance. The state changes are performed autonomously: the system enters in the Active state by observing the output capacitor current and it returns back to the Idle state when the steady-state operation is detected by observing the state variables. The validation of the OICC concept has been done b