# A New Control Scheme for the Buck Converter
## 4 Simulation Results
### Performance Summary  
The performance of the proposed converter is listed in Table 2. As Table 2 shows, for the current transition between the 100 mA and 500 mA, the recovery time is less than 1.6 \(\upmu\)s. At the same time, the converter has good performance at an input voltage of 3.0 V-3.6 V and an output voltage of 1.8 V. Finally, the performance comparison with the presented converters is listed in Table 3.  
The comparisons in Table 3 are briefly discussed as follows:  
1. For the parameter in recovery time, we can find that the proposed scheme is better than the simulation results of [15; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25]. The measurement results of [11; 26; 27; 28] are worse than the proposed scheme, and the numerical differences are large. For this  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Symbol** & **Conditions** & **Min** & **Typ** & **Max** & **Unit** \\ \hline Output capacitor & C\({}_{\mathrm{o}}\) & ESR: 5 m\(\Omega\) & & 10 & & \(\upmu\)F \\ \hline Inductor & L & DCR *: 30 m\(\Omega\) & & 4.7 & & \(\upmu\)H \\ \hline Output voltage & V\({}_{\mathrm{o}}\) & & 1.0 & & 2.5 & V \\ \hline Input supply voltage & V\({}_{\mathrm{in}}\) & & 3.0 & & 3.6 & V \\ \hline Load current & I\({}_{\mathrm{load}}\) & & 100 & & 500 & mA \\ \hline Output ripple & V\({}_{\mathrm{PP}}\) & V\({}_{\mathrm{in}}\) = 3.6 V, V\({}_{\mathrm{o}}\) = 2.5 V & & 2.2 & mV \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Switching frequency} & \multirow{2}{*}{f\({}_{\mathrm{sw}}\)} & Load current: 500 mA & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{MHz} \\  & & @V\({}_{\mathrm{in}}\) = 3.3 V, V\({}_{\mathrm{o}}\) = 1.0–2.5 V & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Recovery time (step-up)} & \multirow{2}{*}{T\({}_{\mathrm{step-up}}\)} & Load current: 100 mA to 500 mA & \multirow{2}{*}{1.57} & \multirow{2}{*}{1\(\upmu\)s} \\  & & @V\({}_{\mathrm{in}}\) = 3.3 V, V\({}_{\mathrm{o}}\) = 1.8 V & & \\ \hline Recovery time & \multirow{2}{*}{T\({}_{\mathrm{step-down}}\)} & Load current: 500 mA to 100 mA & \multirow{2}{*}{1.34} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\upmu\)s} \\  & & @V\({}_{\mathrm{in}}\) = 3.3 V, V\({}_{\mathrm{o}}\) = 1.8 V & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Overshoot} & \multirow{2}{*}{V\({}_{\mathrm{ovshoot}}\)} & Load current: 500 mA to 100 mA & \multirow{2}{*}{21} & \multirow{2}{*}{mV} \\  & & @V\({}_{\mathrm{in}}\) = 3.3 V, V\({}_{\mathrm{o}}\) = 1.8 V & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Undershoot} & \multirow{2}{*}{V\({}_{\mathrm{unshoot}}\)} & Load current: 100 mA to 500 mA & \multirow{2}{*}{21} & \multirow{2}{*}{mV} \\  & & @V\({}_{\mathrm{in}}\) = 3.3 V, V\({}_{\mathrm{o}}\) = 1.8 V & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* DCR: DC resistance of inductor.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Performance of Proposed Converter.  
Figure 12: The measurements of the switching frequency.  
purpose, one is the measurement result, and the other is the simulation result. This is the major difference. 2. For the parameter in undershoot/overshoot: this parameter is greatly affected by the load conditions and the output capacitor. For example, if the output capacitor is large, then the undershoot/overshoot is small. Or, if the load current step of the load conditions is small, then the undershoot/overshoot is small. Therefore, under the same test conditions, the performance of the proposed scheme is better than [15; 21; 22]. 3. For the parameter in switching frequency, we can find that in most of the literature, the switching frequency is designed around 1 MHz. 4. For the parameter in switching frequency variation, we can find that the discussion on switching frequency variation is a minority in all the comparison literature, and only appears in [11; 21; 22]. The switching frequency variation of the proposed scheme is less than 1.2%.