Voltage Control of the Boost Converter: PI vs. Nonlinear Passivity‐Based Control

We carry out a detailed analysis of direct voltage control of a Boost converter feeding a simple resistive load. First, we prove that using a classical PI control to stabilize a desired equilibrium leads to a very complicated dynamic behavior consisting of two equilibrium points, one of them can be stabilized for PI gains within certain negative ranges , while the second equilibrium point may also be rendered stable—but for sufficiently large positive tuning gains. Moreover, if we neglect the resistive effect of the inductor, there is only one equilibrium and it is stable for a certain range of negative PI gains. From a practical point of view, it is important to note that the only useful equilibrium point is that of minimum current and that, in addition, there is always a resistive component in the inductor either by its parasitic resistance or by the resistive component of the output impedance of the previous stage. In opposition to this scenario, we recall three nonlinear voltage‐feedback controllers that ensure asymptotic stability of the desired equilibrium with simple gain tuning rules, an easily defined domain of attraction, and smooth transient behavior. Two of them are very simple, nonlinear, static voltage feedback rules, while the third one is a variation of the PID scheme called PID‐Passivity‐based Control (PBC). In its original formulation, PID‐PBC requires full state measurement, but we present a modified version that incorporates a current observer . All three nonlinear controllers are designed following the principles of PBC, which has had enormous success in many engineering applications.