TY - JOUR
T1 - Modeling and Advanced Control of Dual-Active-Bridge DC-DC Converters
T2 - A Review
AU - Shao, Shuai
AU - Chen, Linglin
AU - Shan, Zhenyu
AU - Gao, Fei
AU - Chen, Hui
AU - Sha, Deshang
AU - Dragicevic, Tomislav
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 1986-2012 IEEE.
PY - 2022/2/1
Y1 - 2022/2/1
N2 - This article classifies, describes, and critically compares different modeling techniques and control methods for dual-active-bridge (DAB) dc-dc converters and provides explicit guidance about the DAB controller design to practicing engineers and researchers. First, available modeling methods for DAB including reduced-order model, generalized average model, and discrete-time model are classified and quantitatively compared using simulation results. Based on this comparison, recommendations for suitable DAB modeling method are given. Then, we comprehensively review the available control methods including feedback-only control, linearization control, feedforward plus feedback, disturbance-observer-based control, feedforward current control, model predictive current control, sliding mode control, and moving discretized control set model predictive control. Frequency responses of the closed-loop control-to-output and output impedance are selected as the metrics of the ability in voltage tracking and the load disturbance rejection performance. The frequency response plots of the closed-loop control-to-output transfer function and output impedance of each control method are theoretically derived or swept using simulation software PLECS and MATLAB. Based on these plots, remarks on each control method are drawn. Some practical control issues for DAB including dead-time effect, phase drift, and dc magnetic flux bias are also reviewed. This article is accompanied by PLECS simulation files of the reviewed control methods.
AB - This article classifies, describes, and critically compares different modeling techniques and control methods for dual-active-bridge (DAB) dc-dc converters and provides explicit guidance about the DAB controller design to practicing engineers and researchers. First, available modeling methods for DAB including reduced-order model, generalized average model, and discrete-time model are classified and quantitatively compared using simulation results. Based on this comparison, recommendations for suitable DAB modeling method are given. Then, we comprehensively review the available control methods including feedback-only control, linearization control, feedforward plus feedback, disturbance-observer-based control, feedforward current control, model predictive current control, sliding mode control, and moving discretized control set model predictive control. Frequency responses of the closed-loop control-to-output and output impedance are selected as the metrics of the ability in voltage tracking and the load disturbance rejection performance. The frequency response plots of the closed-loop control-to-output transfer function and output impedance of each control method are theoretically derived or swept using simulation software PLECS and MATLAB. Based on these plots, remarks on each control method are drawn. Some practical control issues for DAB including dead-time effect, phase drift, and dc magnetic flux bias are also reviewed. This article is accompanied by PLECS simulation files of the reviewed control methods.
KW - DC-DC
KW - discrete-time model
KW - dual active bridge (DAB)
KW - feedback control
KW - feedforward control
KW - generalized average model
KW - model predictive control
KW - reduced-order model
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117364016&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/TPEL.2021.3108157
DO - 10.1109/TPEL.2021.3108157
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85117364016
SN - 0885-8993
VL - 37
SP - 1524
EP - 1547
JO - IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics
JF - IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics
IS - 2
ER -