This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2854585, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Modelling phase interactions in the dual-

interleaved buck converter using sampler-
decomposition
Alejandro Villarruel-Parra, and Andrew J. Forsyth, Senior Member, IEEE.

Equation Chapter 1 Section 1

Abstract— The averaged small-signal model of the dual-

interleaved buck converter is extended to include the
phase interaction effects that arise from the interleaved
sampling of the phase currents. Sampler decomposition
techniques are used to extend the averaged model,
revealing a slow-scale instability that can place significant
restrictions on the choice of controller parameters. The
model is confirmed by simulations and measurements
using a 60kW dual-interleaved prototype with Inter-Phase
Transformer (IPT), however the analysis is equally
applicable to interleaved converters without magnetic
coupling.

Index Terms— Average current, control, DC-DC

converters, interleaved converters, modelling, small- Fig. 1. Dual-interleaved buck converter with inter-phase transformer.
signal.
advantage of being more straightforward than the highly
I. INTRODUCTION detailed sampled-data methods. This papers builds on the
work in [9] to show that the modelling technique proposed for
I NTERLEAVING in DC-DC converters is a well-established
technique to increase input and output ripple frequencies,
reduce passive component size and spread the thermal load.
the dual-interleaved boost converter can also be applied
successfully to the interleaved buck converter in continuous
conduction mode, revealing a slow-scale instability that
This technique is used in many applications ranging from low
restricts the choice of control parameters. The analysis is
voltage power supplies to the high power converters within an presented for a converter with interphase transformer, but is
electric vehicle power train [1]–[4]. Individual average phase
equally applicable to uncoupled converters where similar
current feedback is often used to balance the phase-currents in slow-scale instabilities can arise.
interleaved systems [5]–[8], but can result in phase interaction
and instability, which is not predicted by standard average-
II. SMALL-SIGNAL MODELLING OF INTERLEAVED
value modelling techniques. The instabilities can be at quite CONVERTERS WITH AVERAGE-CURRENT MODE
low frequencies, around 1 kHz, and can place significant CONTROL
limitation on the parameters for the phase-current controllers.
One approach to analyse these effects is through the extension A. Small-signal averaged model of the dual-interleaved
of the standard average-value model using sampler buck converter
decomposition techniques [9]. This approach, which was Fig. 1 shows the dual-interleaved buck converter with Inter-
generalized for converters with two or more phases and phase transformer (IPT). Assuming continuous conduction
demonstrated for a dual-interleaved boost converter, has the operation, then by substitution of the converter switch
networks with the averaged PWM switch model [10], the
Manuscript received December 21, 2017; revised March 22, 2018 averaged DC and small-signal model shown in Fig. 2 is
and June 4, 2018; accepted June 14, 2018. This work was supported obtained, where the IPT has been modelled using the
in part by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research windings’ self-inductances (L1 and L2) and mutual inductance
Council National Centre for Power Electronics within the “Converters (Lm) [11]. The upper case variables in Fig. 2 denote steady-
Theme” [EP/K035096/1]. (corresponding author: Alejandro Villarruel-
Parra). state components whilst the lower case variables are the small-
The authors are with the School of Electrical and Electronic signal components. D1 and D2 are the duty-ratios of Q1 and Q2.
Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, Neglecting the DC components of Fig. 2 and under the
U.K. (e-mail:[email protected]; assumption that the components comprising the converter
[email protected]). Color versions of one or more of
the figures in this paper are available online at
phases are identical, L1 = L2 = Lc, the small-signal variations
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2854585, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Fig. 2. DC and small-signal model of the dual-interleaved buck converter with IPT.

Fig. 3. Block diagram of the dual-interleaved buck converter with IPT with digital average-current mode control.

of the converter phase-currents ĩ1(s) and ĩ2(s) can be expressed converter switching period respectively. The digital PWM
in terms of the control inputs d̃ 1(s) and d̃ 2(s) as: operation is modelled using the zero-order-hold extrapolator
i  s   G  s  d  s   G  s  d  s  (1) transfer function Gh0(s)= (1-e-sT)/s. The closed-loop reference-
1 di 1 dxi 2
to-phase current transfer functions of this system can be found
i2  s   Gdxi  s  d1  s   Gdi  s  d2  s  (2) to be:

where Gdi(s) and Gdxi(s) are the converter duty ratio-to-phase i1 ( z )
Gi1iref ( z )  
current and the converter duty ratio-to-opposite phase current i ( z )
ref
transfer functions which are defined in the Appendix.
C ( z )Gdi ( z )  C ( z )Gdxi ( z )  C 2 ( z ) Gdi 2 ( z )  Gdxi ( z )Gdxi ( z ) 
B. Small-signal model of the converter with digital (3)
1  2C ( z )Gdi ( z )  C 2 ( z ) Gdi 2 ( z )  Gdxi ( z )Gdxi ( z ) 
average current feedback control
The closed-loop, small-signal model of the dual-interleaved
buck converter with digital average-current mode control is
i2 ( z )
shown in Fig. 3. The sampling of the average phase current is Gi 2 iref ( z )  
i ( z )
represented by the samplers, S. Given the symmetry of the ref

converter waveforms in continuous conduction mode, the

C ( z )Gdi ( z )  C ( z )Gdxi ( z )  C 2 ( z ) Gdi 2 ( z )  Gdxi ( z )Gdxi ( z ) 
average phase current can be obtained by sampling once in the (4)
middle of the corresponding transistor conduction interval at 1  2C ( z )Gdi ( z )  C 2 ( z ) Gdi 2 ( z )  Gdxi ( z )Gdxi ( z ) 
any point of operation [9, 12, 13]. The phase-shifted operation
where the z-domain transfer functions Gdi(z), Gdxiϕ(z) and
of the phase-2 sampler with respect to the phase-1 sampler, S,
Gdxiθ(z) are obtained using the modified z-transform to account
is modelled by means of the time delay and advance units, esT/2
for the fractional time-delay:
and e-sT/2 according to the sampler decomposition method [9].
The controllers are represented by C(z), and the computational Gdi  z   m Gh 0  s  G di  s  m 1  (5)
 T
delay of the control algorithms is modelled by e-τs where τ =
tcomp/T and tcomp and T are the computational delay and the Gdxi  z   m Gh 0  s  G dxi  s  m 1 (6)
   T  
1
2

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2854585, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Fig. 4. Time-domain response of the phase-1 current to small step-increments in the reference input obtained using: the SABER switched model (first column),
the interleaved small-signal model (second column) and the conventional small-signal model (third column).

Gdxi  z   z m Gh 0  s  G dxi  s  m  (7) TABLE I

   T  
1
2 CONVERTER COMPONENTS AND PARAMETERS

The closed-loop reference-to-phase current transfer functions Component Symbol Value

may also be derived assuming non-delayed operation of the
Output inductor L 5.4 µH
samplers in the control-loops, which is the conventional Output inductor stray resistance RL 0.029 Ω
modelling approach [5, 7, 8], resulting in identical transfer IPT self-inductance L1 , L2 185.4 µH
functions for each phase since the phases are assumed to have IPT mutual inductance Lm 184.4 µH
the same component values: IPT coupling coefficient k 0.995
Output capacitance Co 26 µF
C ( z ) Gdi ( z )  Gdxi ( z )  Switching frequency f 75 kHz
Gi1iref ( z )  Gi 2iref ( z )  (8) Switching/sampling period T 13.33 µs
1  C ( z ) Gdi ( z )  Gdxi ( z )  Computational delay τ T/2

where Gdxi  z   m Gh 0  s  G dxi  s  m  .

interleaved model and the conventional model. The first
column of Fig. 4 shows SABER simulation results using a
III. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE INTERLEAVED AND THE
switched model that includes the interleaved sampling of the
CONVENTIONAL MODELS
phase currents in the digital controller. The sample times and
A. Performance of the phase current to step changes sample period (13.33 µs) were identical in the model and
The set of unit step responses of the phase current, Fig. 4, is simulations. The second and third columns show the transfer-
used to illustrate the difference between the predictions of the function predictions from the interleaved, (3), and the

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2854585, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Fig. 5. Comparison of the stability-range predicted by the conventional/non-interleaved model and the interleaved when a digital PI compensator is used to
regulate the current-feedback control-loops at (a) Vin = 400 V, Rload = 1.8 Ω; (b) Vin = 700 V, Rload = 2.7 Ω.

TABLE II
COMPARISON OF POLES AND ZEROS FROM THE CLOSED-LOOP, REFERENCE-TO-PHASE CURRENT TRANSFER FUNCTIONS*
Poles Zeros
Conventional Interleaved Conventional Interleaved Interleaved
Gi1iref(z)&Gi2iref(z) Gi1iref(z)&Gi2iref(z) Gi1iref(z)&Gi2iref(z) Gi1iref(z) Gi2iref(z)
0.189±0.864j (16.2 kHz) 0.180±0.872j (16.4 kHz) -- 0.991±0.095j 0.994±0.098j
0.945 0.993±0.097j (1.16 kHz) 0.760 0.7369 0.752
0.138 0.943 0.5 0.5 0.5
-- 0.109 -- 0.028 0.061
-- 0.0510 -0.927 -2.664 -0.472

*Point of operation: Vin = 400 V, Rload = 1.8 Ω with PI controller gains Kp = 50(T) and Ki = 50.

conventional, (8), models respectively. SABER and small- and zeros predicted by both models are compared in Table II.
signal models exclude all losses except RL, the series The converter parameters used to obtain these results are listed
resistance of the output inductor. The converter parameters in Table I.
are listed in Table I. PI compensators were used to regulate It can be observed that the conventional and the interleaved
the phase currents. In the first row in Fig. 4, the PI integral models have four poles situated in similar locations: two real
gain, Ki, is varied from 10 to 100, and in the second row the poles at ≈0.94 and ≈0.1, and a pair of high-frequency complex
input voltage is varied from 100 V to 700 V. poles at ≈0.18±0.87j (≈16 kHz). The high-frequency
The results from the transfer functions show a close oscillations observed in the step responses are attributed to the
correspondence with the simulation results with virtually- latter. Furthermore, the interleaved model contains an
identical rise time, natural frequency (16.66 kHz) and additional pair of complex poles, 0.993+0.097j, which are
damping ratio. However a lower lightly damped natural almost cancelled by a pair of complex zeroes present in both
frequency (ranging from 1 kHz to 1.6 kHz) is evident in many the reference-to-phase current transfer functions. These poles
of the responses from the interleaved model, but is completely are responsible for the low-frequency oscillations observed in
absent in the conventional model results. The same natural the transient responses (≈1.1 kHz) and become unstable when
frequency is also observable in the SABER results. The the controller gain is chosen to be at least two times larger
additional high-frequency oscillations that occur in the than the proportional gain.
simulation results were attributed to PWM quantization and Finally, the Kp / Ki controller design spaces shown in Fig. 5
current-sampling effects. are used to illustrate the difference in the stability range
predicted by the interleaved model and the conventional
B. Pole-zero locations of the system and stability model. The dark shaded areas indicate the stable
To illustrate the difference between the conventional and combinations of Kp and Ki predicted by the interleaved model
interleaved model transfer functions, the values of the poles whilst the lighter shaded areas are the additional regions where

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2854585, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

Fig. 6. 60 kW, 75 kHz SiC MOSFET-based dual-interleaved converter and

control platform including Texas Instruments TMS320F28377 digital signal
controller to regulate the converter phase-currents.

the conventional model suggests that the system operation will

be stable. These regions were generated numerically by
calculation of the system poles over a systematic sweep of the
controller parameters. The patterns are similar to those found
in [9] for the dual-interleaved boost converter, and are
consistent with the fact that the conventional model over
predicts the system stability limits.

IV.EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
The experiments were undertaken using a 60 kW, 75 kHz
SiC MOSFET-based dual-interleaved converter with input and
output voltages up to 700 V and 350 V respectively, Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Experimental and simulated response of i1 to a 15 A step increase in
The semiconductor modules used for the prototype power iref going from 48 A to 63 A for (a) Vin = 400 V, Rload = 1.8 Ω, Kp = 50(T), Ki =
50; and (b) Vin = 700 V, Rload = 2.7 Ω, Kp = 50(T), Ki = 30. Compensator
stage are CAS300M12BM2 from Wolfspeed (1200V@300A). gains were selected to achieve tr(10-90) = 500 μs and overshoot < 5 %.
The prototype passive component values are listed in Table I.
Two single-sample, average current-mode control-loops
were implemented on a Texas Instruments TMS320F28377 reference was compared to that obtained from switched
digital signal controller to regulate the converter phase- simulations and the interleaved model, Fig. 7. The waveforms
currents, [14]. The sampling instants of each control-loop are in the top plot, correspond to the measured phase-current and
strategically positioned in the middle of the transistor on-state its instantaneous moving average value, whilst the waveforms
intervals to acquire the phase current average value. The in the bottom plot are from the SABER simulation and the
controller gains were selected as a compromise between rise- interleaved model. Fig. 7(a) shows the phase-current response
time, overshoot percentage and settling-time, the values used when Vin = 400 V, Rload = 1.8 Ω and Kp = 50(T) and Ki = 50
were 0.5 ms, <5% and 2 ms respectively. whilst Fig. 7(b) corresponds to Vin = 700 V, Rload = 2.7 Ω and
To verify the accuracy of the model, the measured response Kp = 50(T) and Ki = 30. These results show that the model is
of the converter phase-1 current to a 15 A step-change in the able to predict the phase current behavior correctly.

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2854585, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

phases and can result in low frequency oscillations in the

phase currents that are unobservable in the converter input and
output currents. Kp / Ki controller design-space plots were
generated to aid in the visualization of the stability of the
system and with the PI parameter selection. These plots are
similar to those presented for the interleaved boost converter
in that the conventional model over predicts the stability range
of the system [9].
Finally, this modelling technique can be further applied to
converters with more than two phases by appropriately
modelling the phase-delayed sampling of the individual
current control loops using the time delay and time advance
units, e-snT/N and esnT/N, where N is the total number of phases
and n= 1… N the phase index.

APPENDIX
The duty ratio-to-phase current transfer function is defined
as:
Gd 1i1 ( s)  Gd 2i 2 ( s)  Gdi ( s) 

( L  Lc )Vin  s  adi1s  adi 0 

2

 , (A.1)
LTot s( s 2  b1s  b0 )
where:
LTot  2 L  Lc  Lm   ( L2c  L2m ) , (A.2)
Fig. 8. Experimental response of io and i1 to a 15 A step increase in iref going
from 48 A to 63 A using an unstable set of Kp and Ki gains predicted by the adi1 
interleaved model. Vin = 400 V, Rload = 1.8 Ω, Kp = 1(T), Ki = 30.
 L  Lc  LTot  Co  2 L  Lc  Lm  Lc  Lm  Rin Rload
 , (A.3)
 L  Lc  Co LTot Rload
Fig. 8 shows the simulation and experimental results of
output current io and phase current i1 when the converter is  2 L  Lc  Lm  Lc  Lm  Rin  Rload  ,
adi 0  (A.4)
switched into an unstable operating condition with Vin = 400 V  L  Lc  Co LTot Rload
and Rload = 1.8 Ω. Initially, a stable combination of Ki and Kp
were used, later at t = 5 ms the gains were changed to Kp =  2 L R  2 Lm Rin 1 
10(T) and Ki = 80 for both phases. These gain values are b1   c in   , and (A.5)
 LTot Co Rload 
predicted to be unstable by the interleaved model for this point
of operation, but stable by the conventional model, Fig. 5(a). 2  Lc  Lm  Rin  Rload 
Notably, the converter output current appears stable despite b0  . (A.6)
LTot Co Rload
the instability observed in the phase current. The unstable
oscillations appear in both phase currents with the same The duty ratio-to-opposite phase current transfer function is
magnitude, but are out of phase, therefore they are not defined as:
observable in the converter output current. The converter
Gd 1i 2 (s)  Gd 2i1 (s)  Gdxi ( s) 
output voltage was also stable. This suggests phase-current
( Lm  L)Vin  s  adxi1s  adxi 0 
estimation algorithms using a single current sensor, [15]–[17], 2

might not be suitable for interleaved converters with this form  , (A.7)
of phase current control as they may not detect these phase LTot s( s 2  b1s  b0 )
current instabilities. where
V. CONCLUSION  2 L  Lc  Lm  Lc  Lm  Rin  Rload  , and
adxi 0  (A.8)
Enhanced averaged modelling using sampler decomposition  Lm  L  Co LTot Rload
has been shown to be applicable to the dual-interleaved buck
adxi1 
converter with inter-phase transformer using digital average-
current control. The predictions of the enhanced model were  L  Lm  LTot  Co  2 L  Lc  Lm  Lc  Lm  Rin Rload
verified experimentally and by simulation. The analysis  . (A.9)
showed that a low-frequency natural mode is present in the
 Lm  L  Co LTot Rload
system that is not predicted by standard average-value models.
The natural mode is attributed to the interaction between the

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2018.2854585, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS

REFERENCES
Alejandro Villarruel-Parra received the
[1] B. C. Barry, J. G. Hayes, and M. S. Rylko, “CCM and DCM Operation
B.Sc.(Eng) and the M.Sc. degrees from the
of the Interleaved Two-Phase Boost Converter with Discrete and
National Polytechnic Institute of Mexico,
Coupled Inductors,” in IEEE Transactions Power Electronics, vol. 30,
DOI 10.1109/TPEL.2014.2386778, no. 12, pp. 6551–6567, 2015. Mexico, in 2008 and 2010 respectively, and the
[2] M. Pavlovsky, G. Guidi, and A. Kawamura, “Assessment of coupled Ph.D. degree in electrical and electronic
and independent phase designs of interleaved multiphase buck/boost engineering from The University of Manchester,
DC-DC converter for EV power train,” in IEEE Transactions Power Manchester, U.K., in 2015.
Electronics, vol. 29, DOI 10.1109/TPEL.2013.2273976, no. 6, pp. Since 2016, he has been a research associate
2693–2704, 2014. in power electronics at The University of
[3] G. Calderon-Lopez and A. J. Forsyth, “High Power Density DC-DC Manchester, Manchester, U.K. His research
Converter with SiC MOSFETs for Electric Vehicles,” in Proc. 7th IET interests include applications of wideband gap devices for power
International Conference on Power Electronics Machines and Drives conversion, very high-frequency DC-DC converters, modelling and
(PEMD 2014), DOI 10.1049/cp.2014.0463, p. 1.4.01-1.4.01, 2014. control.
[4] H. Lim, M. Jang, and V. Agelidis, “A phase shedding technique for PV
system based on interleaved boost converter,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE Andrew J. Forsyth (M’98–SM’06) received the
International Future Energy Electronics Conference (IFEEC 2015), B.Sc.(Eng) degree from Imperial College,
DOI 10.1109/IFEEC.2015.7361504, 2015. London, U.K., in 1981, and the Ph.D. degree
[5] C. Klumpner, K. Ponggorn, M. Rashed, D. De, C. Patel, and G. Asher, from the University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
“Modelling and control of a multi-stage interleaved DC–DC converter
U.K., in 1987.
with coupled inductors for super-capacitor energy storage system,” in
He was a Design Engineer with GEC Electrical
IET Power Electronics, vol. 6, DOI 10.1049/iet-pel.2012.0529, no. 7,
pp. 1360–1375, 2013. Projects, Ltd., from 1981 to 1983, a Lecturer
[6] M. Ilic and D. Maksimovic, “Digital average current-mode controller with the University of Bath from 1986 to 1990,
for DC-DC converters in physical vapor deposition applications,” in and a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer with Birmingham
IEEE Transactions Power Electronics, vol. 23, DOI University from 1991 to 2004. Since 2004, he
10.1109/TPEL.2008.920880, no. 3, pp. 1428–1436, 2008. has been a Professor of power electronics at the University of
[7] B. C. Barry, J. G. Hayes, R. T. Ryan, M. S. Rylko, R. Stala, A. Penczek Manchester, Manchester, U.K. His research interests include high-
and A. Mondzik, “Small-signal model and control of the interleaved frequency converters, high-frequency magnetic components, modeling,
two-phase coupled-inductor boost converter,” in Proc. 2016 IEEE control, and energy storage, particularly for aerospace and electric
Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE 2016), DOI vehicle applications.
10.1109/ECCE.2016.7855447, pp. 1-6, 2017.
[8] O. F. Ruiz and I. Cervantes, “Averaged modeling of transformer-
coupled interleaved boost converters,” in Proc. 38th Annual Conference
on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON 2012), DOI
10.1109/IECON.2012.6388637, pp. 256–261, 2012.
[9] A. Villarruel-Parra and A. J. Forsyth, “Enhanced Average-Value
Modeling of Interleaved DC – DC Converters Using Sampler
Decomposition,” in IEEE Transactions Power Electronics, vol. 32, DOI
10.1109/TPEL.2016.2559449, no. 3, pp. 2290–2299, 2017.
[10] R. W. Erickson and D. Maksimović, Fundamentals of power
electronics, ch. 7, pp. 235-241, 2nd ed., 223 Spring Street, New York,
NY 10013, USA, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 2004.
[11] D. Maksimović, R. W. Erickson, C. Griesbach, “Modeling of cross-
regulation in converters containing coupled inductors”, in IEEE
Transactions Power Electronics, vol. 15, DOI: 10.1109/63.849030, no.
4, pp. 607-615, 2000.
[12] S. Buso and P. Mattavelli, Digital Control in Power Electronics, San
Rafael, CA, USA, Morgan & Claypool, 2006, pp.39-40. DOI:
10.2200/S00047ED1V01Y200609PEL002.
[13] Jingquan Chen, A. Prodic, R. W. Erickson and D. Maksimovic,
“Predictive digital current programmed control,” in IEEE Transactions
Power Electronics, vol. 18, DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2002.807140, no. 1,
pp. 411–419, 2003.
[14] G. Calderon-Lopez, A. Villaruel-Parra, P. Kakosimos, S. K. Ki, R.
Todd, and A. J. Forsyth, “Comparison of digital PWM control strategies
for high power interleaved DC-DC converters,” in IET Power
Electronics, vol. 11, DOI 10.1049/iet-pel.2016.0886, no. 2, pp. 391-
398, 2018.
[15] H. Kim, M. Falahi, T. M. Jahns, and M. W. Degner, “Inductor current
measurement and regulation using a single DC link current sensor for
interleaved DCDC converters,” in IEEE Transactions Power
Electronics, vol. 26, DOI 10.1109/TPEL.2010.2084108, no. 5, pp.
1503–1510, 2011.
[16] L. Ni, D. J. Patterson, and J. L. Hudgins, “High power current
sensorless bidirectional 16-phase interleaved DC-DC converter for
hybrid vehicle application,” in IEEE Transactions Power Electronics,
vol. 27, DOI 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2165297, no. 3, pp. 1141–1151, 2012.
[17] Y. Cho, A. Koran, H. Miwa, B. York, and J. S. Lai, “An active current
reconstruction and balancing strategy with DC-link current sensing for a
multi-phase coupled-inductor converter,” in IEEE Transactions Power
Electronics, vol. 27, DOI 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2170590, no. 4, pp.
1697–1705, 2012.

0278-0046 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.