SS symmetry

Article
Adaptive Feedback Control of Nonminimum Phase Boost
Converter with Constant Power Load
Khalil Jouili 1, * , Monia Charfeddine 1 and Mohammed Alqarni 2

1 Laboratory of Advanced Systems, Polytechnic School of Tunisia (EPT), B.P. 743, Marsa 2078, Tunisia;
[email protected]
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Business and Technology (UBT),
Jeddah 21361, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The inherent negative impedance characteristics of a Constant Power Load (CPL) pose
a potential threat to the stability of the bus voltage in a DC microgrid consisting of a symmetrical
parallel boost converter. We suggest an adaptive feedback control technique using the input–output
exact feedback linearization theory for a boost converter integrated into a DC microgrid to improve
the stability of the DC bus voltage. This approach involves a transformation of the model into a
Brunovsky canonical form, effectively addressing the nonlinear challenges arising from the CPL and
the nonminimum phase characteristics of the boost converter. Subsequently, guided by the Lyapunov
approach, an adaptation law is established to fine-tune the controller’s gain vector, facilitating the
tracking of a predefined linearizing feedback control. We methodically create a method to choose the
gains of the adaptive controller in order to guarantee an adequate output response. We validate our
suggested controller’s performance using simulation.

Keywords: boost converter; constant power load; nonminimum phase; input–output feedback
linearization; adaptive control; Lyapunov theory

Citation: Jouili, K.; Charfeddine, M.;

1. Introduction
Alqarni, M. Adaptive Feedback
Control of Nonminimum Phase Boost Power system modeling and analysis are related to symmetry in the shift from con-
Converter with Constant Power Load. ventional power networks to smart grids. Because they enable impedance coupling in
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352. https:// electric source and load connections, electronic converters are frequently used in mod-
doi.org/10.3390/sym16030352 ern electronics. Asymmetrical electrical designs often increase unique features for better
overall performance.
Academic Editors: Zhenqing Liu,
In modern times, power electronic converters play a pivotal role in advanced electrical
Dmitri Donetski and Sergei
D. Odintsov
systems for vehicles and DC microgrids, as documented in works such as [1–5]. Within
DC-distributed power systems, these converters are often connected in a cascaded manner.
Received: 20 January 2024 Some of these converters serve as closely regulated loads, consuming constant power and
Revised: 21 February 2024 behaving as what are known as constant power loads (CPLs). These CPLs exhibit negative
Accepted: 28 February 2024 incremental impedances, which can result in severe instability issues, posing a significant
Published: 14 March 2024
challenge in the development of stabilizing controllers forsupplying DC-DC converters.
In the literature, you can find a multitude of controller designs for DC-DC converters
that provide power to CPLs. For instance, active damping techniques were introduced in [6],
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
while passive damping approaches were employed in [7–9] to counteract the destabilizing
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. effects of CPLs in DC-DC power converters.
This article is an open access article References [10,11] provide passivity-based control solutions for a boost converter
distributed under the terms and that consider the load dynamics similar to a mainly constant power load. The passivity-
conditions of the Creative Commons based controller derived from these works takes the form of a nonlinear inverse quadratic
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// proportional derivative (PD) controller [10,12]. An adaptive output feedback controller for
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ a boost converter is proposed in work [13] in order to rebuild the load conductance and
4.0/). inductor current.

Symmetry 2024, 16, 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16030352 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry

Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 2 of 15

However, it is essential to acknowledge that passivity-based control exhibits a notable

drawback: It is limited to systems with a relative degree of one and weakly minimum
phase systems, at the very least [14]. The authors of [10] difficulty that the unstable internal
dynamics of the boost converter present stability challenges for the suggested passivity-
based controller. Moreover, controllers derived from PD principles are susceptible to issues
related to noise.
An alternative approach, as presented in [11], introduces passivity-based control with
interconnection. Nonetheless, this implementation has its own limitation; it is organized
for a specific operating point of the constant power load [15]. In summary, passivity-
based control exhibits limited noise suppression primarily because of the presence of a
differentiator, and it tends to respond slowly [15]. On the other hand, references [16–20]
provide alternative nonlinear control methods, including sliding mode control, synergetic-
based control, current mode control, and model predictive control. Sliding mode control,
owing to its straightforward implementation and robustness, finds extensive applications
and has been employed in the stabilization of DC-DC converters and the mitigation of
instabilities caused by constant power loads (CPLs) [15,21,22]. Nonetheless, a significant
drawback of sliding mode control is the phenomenon known as “chattering” and variable
switching frequencies, which can impact the filtering requirements of the DC-DC boost
converter. Furthermore, sliding mode control is a form of inversion control that necessitates
the internal dynamics to possess stability.
In [23], synergetic based regulation is used; however, a disadvantage of this approach
is that it is highly susceptible to noise of high frequencies. In [16], current mode control has
been studied with an emphasis on system stability analysis in a small-signal setting.
Model predictive control has also been explored for the stabilization of multi-converter
systems supplying CPLs, representing a relatively new avenue for researchers with many
challenges yet to be fully addressed [20].
In theory, feedback linearization has the potential to offset any degree of constant
power load (CPL) and achieve system stabilization in a comprehensive, large-signal context,
as supported by references [15,24]. Feedback linearization typically revolves around the
pursuit of a nonlinear feedback mechanism that, when applied, effectively nullifies the
system’s inherent nonlinearity. This, in turn, allows for the application of conventional
linear control techniques in controller design [21]. However, the application of feedback
linearization is conventionally restricted to nonminimum phase systems. In the case of a
nonminimum phase boost converter, this limitation can be overcome by circumventing
the minimum phase requirement through the application of an input-state linearization
approach instead of input_output linearization, as discussed in [25].
It is important to note, however, that input-state linearization has a major limitation in
that it is not the best option for output tracking control unless there is a way to describe
the reference states in terms of the reference output trajectory. An alternative method for
controlling nonminimum phase boost converters involves the regulation of the output
voltage by indirectly regulating the inductor current, as proposed in [26]. The issue with
indirect regulation lies in its inability to shape the output response effectively. The response
of the output voltage follows the open-loop dynamics, leading to slower response times and
potential overshooting or undershooting. Moreover, this method exhibits high sensitivity to
changes in circuit parameters and variations in the load, as highlighted in references [27,28].
An alternative approach to regulating nonminimum phase systems involves redefining the
output in a way that transforms the system, with respect to this redefined output, into a
minimum-phase system, as suggested in [29–32].
In [33], exact linearization is used as an output redefinition technique to control the DCDC
boost converter. It achieves this by redefining the system’s output as a linear combination of
inductor current and output current, effectively converting it into a minimum phase system.
However, a notable drawback is the presence of significant output voltage errors in steady-
state. Additionally, precise knowledge of the load resistance is required when calculating the
reference current, and this parameter can vary, potentially complicating implementation for
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 3 of 15

constant power loads (CPLs). Furthermore, the system is susceptible to transitioning between
minimum and nonminimum phase states during transient conditions, which may share
similar limitations with non direct voltage control. The use of voltage mode control in [34]
and a loop-cancellation technique in [24] are two examples of active damping methodologies
that use feedback linearization. But, the way it is described in [24] uses a highly noise-
sensitive differentiator block and a reciprocal block, both of which can be difficult to apply.
Furthermore, by adding a new state to the system’s modeling, this approach makes the
system more complex. In [34], the authors employ an active damping method to establish
small-signal stability. It is important to mention that the strategies outlined in [24,34] do not
modify the internal dynamics of the system, which leads to a system that is band-limited
and, as a result, responds more slowly. Stable Shortest Horizon FCS-MPC Output Voltage
Control in Nonminimum Phase Boost-Type Converters Based on Input-State Linearization is
an alternate method that is introduced in [35].
However, in order to ensure proper system functioning, a short-horizon FCS-MPC
controller based on input-state linearization is suggested. This implementation must
address the issue of the unstable internal dynamic.
Additional research exploring input-output feedback linearization methods can be
found in references [24,36–38]. In [24,36], the stabilization of a boost converter is achieved
for a combination load comprising a constant power load and a resistive load.
The authors in [39] use a full-order feedback controller for applying feedback lineariza-
tion using coordinate transformation for a system that is solely CPL-driven.
The previous literature review shows that the origin instability issues introduced by a
boost converter with a CPL can be traced to the nonminimum phase behavior. It has been
found that nonminimum phase behavior imposes limits on the control performance, and
the stability of dynamical systems is difficult to control.
It is evident that there is no universal solution to these challenges, and further research
is essential in this domain.
In order to address the challenges outlined above, this paper introduces an innovative
adaptive feedback nonlinear control approach. This approach combines the Input–Output Ex-
act Feedback Linearization technique with the Lyapunov approach to control a nonminimum
phase boost converter system that supplies power to a constant power load (CPL).
The method we propose involves a redefinition of the output by introducing a current
signal into the node voltage. This transformation converts the system model into a canonical
Brunovsky form. Our approach focuses on adjusting the gain vector of a nonlinear adaptive
controller as the control procedure unfolds. We aim to update this gain vector through a
suitable adaptation law, enabling the adaptive control to closely follow a predetermined
input_output feedback linearizing controller. By employing the principles of Lyapunov
theory, we establish that the desired trajectory can be effectively tracked by the output signal.
By taking the boost converter with a CPL as our control subject, we thoroughly analyze
the design steps of our proposed control strategy. Ultimately, we validate the effectiveness
of our proposed controller through simulations.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the establishment of the affine
nonlinear model for the boost converter with a constant power load in a DC microgrid.
Section 3 delves into a discussion on the zero dynamic stability of the system under varying
output functions, all based on the input_output feedback linearizing controller technique.
In Section 4, we put forth the nonlinear adaptive strategy and present proof of the global
asymptotic stability of the closed-loop system, drawing upon the principles of Lyapunov
stability theory. Simulation results are reported in Section 5. Finally, in Section 6, we
provide our concluding remarks.

2. System Description and Modeling

2.1. System Description
A typical DC microgrid configuration is seen in Figure 1 [13]. Through a DC-DC
converter, the DC source supplies the necessary voltage for the DC bus, and several
 2. System Description and Modeling
2.1. System Description
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 4 of 15
A typical DC microgrid configuration is seen in Figure 1 [13]. Through a DC-DC con-
verter, the DC source supplies the necessary voltage for the DC bus, and several electronic
loads attached to the DC bus, such as the controlled rectifier or the inverter, can be re-
electronic loadsgarded
attached to theInDC
as CPLs. bus,
order tosuch as thethe
guarantee controlled rectifier
appropriate or the
operation inverter,
of the differentcan
loads, the
be regarded as CPLs. In order to guarantee the appropriate operation of the different
bus voltage supplies a constant power to the CPLs as well as a constant voltage loads, for the
the bus voltage resistive
suppliesload.
a constant power to the CPLs as well as a constant voltage for the
resistive load.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. DC microgrid DC microgrid
system system configuration.
configuration.

The DC
The DC bus voltage may bus voltage may
fluctuate, and,fluctuate,
possibly,and, possibly,
the entire DCthe entire DC
microgrid microgrid
may becomemay be-
Symmetry 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW due tocome
unstable unstable
the CPL’s due to the
negative CPL’s negative
impedance impedance characteristics,
characteristics, variations in thevariations
5 load, in the load,
of 17 and
changes in the distributed power source. A condensed DC distribution system is displayed is dis-
and changes in the distributed power source. A condensed DC distribution system
in Figure 2. Theplayed in Figure
resistive load2.and
The the
resistive
CPL load and the in
are linked CPL are linked
parallel in parallel
to the DC bus to in
thethe
DC bus in
the system, which is powered by the distributed power supply through a boost converter.
system, which is powered by the distributed power supply through a boost converter.
Where E is the distributed power supply’s total input voltage, Lfil is its filter inductor,
DC Source DC-DC
Cf isBoost
its filterconvertor DC
capacitor, R is its total is its bus voltage, I L fil is the filter
Bus load, VbusCPL
resistive
inductor current, PCPL is its lumped constant power load, Io is its output current, Dd is its
diode, and Qs is its switching device. IP = PCPL/Vbus, where IP is the instantaneous value of
the CPL’s input current, gives the voltage current characteristics of a CPL.

Figure2.2.The
Figure TheDC
DC distribution
distribution system
systeminina asimplified form
simplified with
form feeding
with a CPL.
feeding a CPL.

2.2. Modeling System

As shown in Figure 2, assuming that the system operates in Continuous Current
Mode (CCM), state space averaging is used to create the average model of the boost con-
verter with a CPL, which can be expressed by the following equations:
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 5 of 15

Where E is the distributed power supply’s total input voltage, Lfil is its filter inductor,
Cf is its filter capacitor, R is its total resistive load, Vbus is its bus voltage, IL f il is the filter
inductor current, PCPL is its lumped constant power load, Io is its output current, Dd is its
diode, and Qs is its switching device. IP = PCPL /Vbus , where IP is the instantaneous value of
the CPL’s input current, gives the voltage current characteristics of a CPL.

2.2. Modeling System

As shown in Figure 2, assuming that the system operates in Continuous Current Mode
(CCM), state space averaging is used to create the average model of the boost converter
with a CPL, which can be expressed by the following equations:

dI
 L f il = − Vbus + E + Vbus d

dt L f il L f il L f il
IL IL (1)
dV V f il Pbus f il

 bus
dt = − RC
bus
+ C − f C V − C f
d
f C f

where d is the duty cycle.

 T h iT
Let x1 x2 = IL f il Vbus and u = d, then the Equation (1) can be rewritten as follows:

dx1 x2 E x2

dt =− L f il + L f il + L f il u
(2)
 dx2
dt = − RC x2
f
+ Cxf1 − CPfCPL x2 − x1
Cf u

The following dynamical form is used to write the model (2) that represents the
dynamics of a DC distribution system:
 .
x = f ( x ) + g( x ) u
(3)
y = h( x )
x2 E x2 #
−
" # "
L f il + L f il L f il
With f ( x ) = and g( x ) = .
− x2
RC f + x1
Cf − PCPL
C f x2
− Cxf1

3. System Analysis and Problem Formulation

3.1. System Analysis
With respect to the nonlinear affine model presented in (2), if the two conditions
listed below satisfy [13], there is without any question a set of output functions h(x) that
correspond to the achievement of the following linearization criteria: the total number of
orders r equals the number of dimensions n of the system at x = x0 , and the relative order
of this system has a definition.
h i
(i). The rank of the matrix g( x ) ad f g( x ) . . . adnf −2 g( x ) adnf −1 g( x ) is constant and
equal to n for any x hnear x0 . i
(ii). The vector field set g( x ) ad f g( x ) . . . adnf −2 g( x ) is involutory at x = x0 .
A function f (x) is required in order to accurately linearize the degree of connection
r of the provided system on an open set of x = x0 into a controlled linear Brunovsky
canonical form [19]. Here, denotes the Lie bracket ad f g( x ) of the vector fields g(x) and f (x),
respectively.
If the system (2) does not succeed in satisfying all of the linearization criteria (i) and (ii),
it will develop unstable zero dynamics and turn into a nonminimum phase system.

3.2. Problem Formulation

The concept of input_output feedback linearization has been well-established in the
literature on nonlinear control systems [13].
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 6 of 15

The output (y) of a Single Input Single Output nonlinear system (3) is differentiated
until the control input (u) appears in the resultant equation in order to apply input_output
feedback linearization to the system. The relative degree (r) is equivalent to how often the
output is differentiated. The dynamics of a nonlinear system may be divided into an internal
subsystem (n–r dimension unobservable) and an exterior linear subsystem (input_output
of r dimension) when a coordinate transform is used. The system’s order is represented by
‘n’ in this case. With linear state feedback control, the linear subsystem is stabilized. When
the states of the linear subsystem are at rest, the dynamics of the unobservable subsystem,
also known as zero dynamics, describe the internal dynamics [5,13].
If we use the capacitor voltage as the output function, then y = x2 . The nonlinear
system (2) has a relative degree of r = 1, which is lower than the system’s order n = 2.
The dynamics of the system (2) are, therefore, split into an internal, unobservable
component and an input_output component. The boost converter with the CPL model will
be changed to the normal form by utilizing the change of state transformation as follows:
 
ξ (x)
T (x) = (4)
z( x )

In order to resolve the following equation, an expression of the dynamic compensator

z(x) is determined in accordance with the input_output feedback linearization theory [19]:

L g z( x ) = 0 (5)

Equation (6), which reads as follows, translates to a potential resolution to this issue:

Cf 2 L f il 2
z( x ) = x2 + x (6)
2 2 1
Consequently, the following is the system’s internal dynamic equation:
 12
ξ2 Cf L f il
  
.
z( x ) = − PCPL + + E − ξ2 + z (7)
R 2 2

Allowing for ξ = 0, the system’s zero dynamics are as follows:

 21
L f il

.
z( x ) = − PCPL + E z (8)
2

The Jacobian matrix and an equilibrium point may both be determined using the
2
L f il PCPL .
∂z E2
formulas Y = 2E 2 and ∂z = 1 , respectively, as shown in Equation (8). Since
(2zL f il ) 2
2
the eigenvalue of Equation (8) at the Y is equal to λ = P E L and is situated in the right
CPL f il
half of the complex plane, the zero dynamics given in Equation (6) is unstable. As a result,
when the capacitor voltage serves as the system output feedback value, the system is a
nonminimum phase.

4. Nonlinear Adaptative Feedback Controller

As can be shown from the analysis above, an unstable boost converter system with
unstable internal dynamics cannot have input_output feedback linearization applied except,
as was said in Section 3.2, by stabilizing the internal dynamics.
In order to comply with the constraints of input_output feedback linearization, we
redefine the output function h(x).
As a result of the analysis above, h(x) may be thought of as the following:

1 
y= C f x22 + L f il x12 (9)
2
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 7 of 15

The control variable (u) is subjected to the concepts of precise input-output feedback lin-
earization and Lyapunov stability theory in order to stabilize the zero dynamics (6) and create a
control structure that enables asymptotic output tracking. Therefore, by adjusting the inductor
current and capacitor voltage, the stability of the bus voltage may be indirectly managed.
Our main objective is to design a Lyapunov controller that, due to its performance in
output tracking, mimics a predefined input_output
 linearizingcontroller.
First of all, we derive the output y = 12 C f x22 + L f il x12 to the relative degree
 .    
x2 x1 P x1 x2 E x2


 y = C f x 2 − RC f
+ C f
− C x
f 2
− C f
u + L f il x 1 − L f il
+ L f il
+ L f il
u
x22


= − − P + Ex

CPL 1


 R
= L f h(x )


.. x1 PCPL x1
   (10)
 y = 2 Rx2 − RC x2
+ C − C x − C u + E − L
x2
+ L
E
+ L
x2
u

 f  f f 2  f  f il  f il f il

 = E(EL− x2 ) − 2RCx2 x1 − Rx2 − PCPL


1 x2
+ LEf il + 2x


x2 RC f u
f il f


 = L2 h ( x ) + L L ( x ) u

f g f

The order of the system (2) corresponds to the relative degree r = 2 in the relationship.
The boost converter with the CPL model will be changed to the normal form by
utilizing the change of state transformation as follows:
    
ξ 1 (x) 1
C f x22 + L f il x12
2
T (x) =   =   (11)
x22
ξ 2 (x) − R − PCPL + Ex1

The nonlinear system (2) may be made linear in Brunovsky canonical form by applying
the coordinate transformation (11) as shown below:
( .
ξ 1 = ξ2
. (12)
ξ 2 = L2f h( x ) + L g L f h( x )u Iol = v

where ξ 2 and ξ 1 are state variables of converted linear systems (12) and the relationship
between the new control variable v and the existing nonlinear boost converter system’s
control variable u is as follows:
 
− E ( E − x2 ) 2 x2 x2 PCPL
L f il + RC x 1 − R − x2 + v
u Iol ( x ) =  f  (13)
1 x2
L
E
+ 2xRC
f il f

The tracking error and its first derivative are defined as follows using the Lyapunov
design idea: (
e1 = ξ 1 − ξ re f
. (14)
e2 = ξ 2 − ξ re f
where ξ re f is the reference trajectory using the state transformation (11) and the linearized
feedback control (13), the system (12) is written as follows:
( .
e 1 = e2
. .. (15)
e2 = L2f h( x ) + L g L1f h( x ) u IOL − ξ re f

and we choose an input–output linearizing controller:

1  .. 
2
u Iol = − L f h ( x ) + ξ re f + k 1 e 1 + k 2 e 2 (16)
L g L1f h( x )
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 8 of 15

 T .
With K = k1 k2 , the closed-loop system can be written as e = Ac e:
.    
e1 0 1 e1
. = (17)
e2 −k1 −k2 e2

Should K be a Hurwitz vector, that is, all the roots of the polynomial P(s) = s2 + k2 s + k1
have negative real parts, then the error is stable at the origin.
To perform this, we choose an input_output linearizing controller:
!
R C f L f il E ( E − x2 ) ..
 
2 x2 x2 PCPL
u Iol ( x ) = − + x1 − − + ξ re f − 3e1 − 4.3 e2 (18)
EC f R + 2 L f il x1 x2 L f il RC f R x2

Consequently, the closed-loop system is made linear, and one has the following:
.    
e1 0 1 e1
. = (19)
e2 −3 −4.3 e2

However, it is possible that nonlinear controllers do better overall than linear con-
trollers at regulating nonlinear systems. The implementation of the nonlinear component,
in addition to the requirement for precise knowledge of the system model, is one of the key
limitations of the input_output linearizing controller. Here, we propose the creation of an
adaptive feedback controller as a solution to this issue.
The following adaptive feedback controller analytical formulation is taken into consid-
eration:
u Iol =  Γ T e(t) 

(20)
ΓT = Γ1 Γ2
in which Γ is adjusted so that we have in the limit

e T e(t) = u Iol
u Adaptative = Γ (21)

The ideal gain vector is indicated by an asterisk in Γ.

e The following equation is created
by replacing off ueAdaptative in Equation (12):
.
ξ 2 = L2f h( x ) + L g L f h( x )u Adaptative (22)

The following is a rewrite of this equation:

. .. EC f R + 2 L f il x1 x2  
ξ 2 = ξ re f − 3e1 − 4.3e2 − u Iol − u Adaptative (23)
RC f L f il

As a result, we obtain the following:

.
e 1 = e2
(
. EC f R +2 L f il x1 x2
h i T  T (24)
e2 = − 3 e1 − 4.3 e2 + RC f L f il Γ
e −Γ e1 e2
" #

0 0
 0
If we define A = and B = EC f R +2 L f il x1 x2
−3 −4.3 RC L f f il
As a result, the closed-loop system (24) below is obtained:

#  T
. 
Γ
e1 − Γ1
"
e1

0 0
 
e1 0  
e1
. = + EC f R +2 L f il x1 x2     (25)
e2 −3 −4.3 e2 RC f L f il Γ2 − Γ2
e e2
|{z} | {z } |{z} |{z}
.
| {z }|
e A e {z } e
B
(Γ
e − Γ) T
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 9 of 15

It should be demonstrated that because is Hurwitz stable, there exists a positive

definite matrix for any positive definite matrix that fulfills the next Lyapunov equation:

ATP + PA = − Q (26)

We use a Lyapunov candidate function with respect to system (25):

1 e   
V ( e , Γ) = eT P e + Γ − Γ T Γe − Γ (27)
γ

By adjusting Γ so that, the adaptive feedback controller u Adaptative = Γ T e (t) is thus

effectively specified, 
Rt
Γ = γ e (t) T P B e (t) dt


0
(28)
 Γ⟩0


As a result, the output of the adaptive feedback controller may be expressed as follows:
  . . 
u Adaptative = Γ1 ξ 1 − ξ 1re f + Γ2 ξ 1 − ξ 1re f (29)

where

RC f L f il Zt   2   . . 
Γ1 = 0.56 7.34 ξ 1 − ξ 1re f + 10.32 ξ 1 − ξ 1re f ξ 1 − ξ 1re f dt
EC f R + 2 L f il x1 x2
0

and

RC f L f il Zt    . .  . . 2 
Γ2 = 0.45 8.64 ξ 1 − ξ 1re f ξ 1 − ξ 1re f + 9.44 ξ 1 − ξ 1re f dt
EC f R + 2 L f il x1 x2
0

The adaptative feedback controller in (29) is utilized to validate the system represented
in (12), and the closed-loop system (25) is Lyapunov stable. Along the trajectories of (25),
.
the time derivative of V ( e , Γ) is provided with
.  T  T .
V ( e , Γ) = eT A T P + P A e + 2 eT P B Γ e − Γ e − 2 Γ e − Γ Γ


γ
 T   (30)
Γ
= −e Qe − 2 Γ − Γ
T − e T P B
e e
γ
.
if we select Γ = γe T P B, then
.
V ( e , Γ) = − e T Q e < δmin ( Q) ∥e∥2 (31)

where δmin ( Q) is lowest eigenvalue of Q.

Once the system (12) reaches global stability, the suggested adaptive feedback con-
troller’s design is complete. The parameters Γ1 , Γ2 , and γ values can be changed to enhance
the system’s dynamic quality. Figure 3 displays the control block diagram for it.

Remarks
According to the working principle and actual working conditions of the boost con-
verter with a CPL, the variation in the inductance of the filter, capacitor, and load is limited.
The adaptive controller proposed above has an advantage in that knowledge of external
disturbances is not necessary to build the controller. This control method guarantees
robustness. To this end, the proposed control algorithm is designed with the control ob-
jective of enabling the system to accurately track the target value under the influence of
unknown disturbances.
 V ( e , Γ) =− eT Qe < δ min ( Q) e
2
(31)

where δmin ( Q) is lowest eigenvalue of Q.

Once the system (12) reaches global stability, the suggested adaptive feedback con-
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 troller’s design is complete. The parameters Γ1 , Γ 2 , and γ values can be changed to10 of 15
enhance the system’s dynamic quality. Figure 3 displays the control block diagram for it.

d = u Adaptative

ξ  ξ1 ( x )  T ( x) 1
u Adaptative = Γ1 e1 ( t ) + Γ 2 e2 ( t ) −
  y= (
C f x22 + L fil x12 )
ξ 2 ( x ) 
+
2
ξ ref

Figure 3. AdaptiveFigure
feedback control
3. Adaptive block
feedback diagram.
control block diagram.

Remarks
5. Simulation Results
According to the working principle and actual working conditions of the boost con-
Using the MATLAB/Simulink platform,
verter with a CPL, the variation a systemofsimulation
in the inductance model
the filter, capacitor, and was
load iscreated
lim- in
Symmetry this study
2024, 16, to evaluate
x FOR PEER ited. Thethe
REVIEW effects
adaptive of theproposed
controller nonlinearabove adaptive feedback
has an advantage in that control
knowledgestrategy,
of ex-12 of as
17

shown in Figure ternal 3. Vindisturbances

= 12 V, Vis cref = 24 V, L = 1 mH, C = 100 µF, R = 50 Ω, fs = 50 kHz, and
not necessary to build the controller. This control method guaran-
tees robustness. To this end, the proposed control algorithm is designed with the control
PCPL = 10 W are the system’s
objective simulation
of enabling the system parameters.
to accurately track the target value under the influence of
shown in Figure 3. Vin =12 V, Vcref = 24 V, L = 1 mH, C = 100 µF, R = 50 Ω, fs= 50 kHz, and
unknown disturbances.
5.1. Case 1 PCPL = 10 W are the system’s simulation parameters.
5. Simulation Results
In the first case, the 1reference voltage remains constant (Vcref = 24 V). This scenario is
5.1. Case
Using the MATLAB/Simulink platform, a system simulation model was created in
employed to elucidate Inthe
this study toapplication
the first case,the
evaluate of the
theeffects
referenceproposed
voltage
of the nonlinear
remains
nonlinear adaptive
constant
adaptive = 24 feedback
(Vcrefcontrol
feedback V). control
This scenario
strategy, as is
employed
strategy for the DC-DC to elucidate
boost the application of the proposed nonlinear adaptive feedback con-
converter.
trol strategy
Figure 4 displays the for the DC-DC
dynamic boost converter.
response waveforms of the system. Notably, the
Figure 4 displays the dynamic response waveforms of the system. Notably, the ca-
capacitor voltage pacitor
stabilizes at the prescribed reference value value
voltage stabilizes at the prescribed reference of 24ofV.24The
V. Theintroduced
introducedcontrol
control
strategy effectively attains its control objective, upholding system stability,
strategy effectively attains its control objective, upholding system stability, enhancing enhancingdy-
dynamic responsenamic speed, and fortifying
response resistance
speed, and fortifying to interference.
resistance to interference.

Figure
Figure 4. Output and 4. Output
reference and reference
voltages, voltages,
inductor inductor
current, andcurrent, and the adaptative
the adaptative feedback
feedback control
control signal
signal for Case 1.
for Case 1.
5.2. Case 2
The second case assesses the effectiveness of the proposed controller strategy when
subjected to abrupt changes in the input voltage.
In Figure 5, the dynamic response waveforms of the system depict the response to
step changes in Vin, transitioning from 12 V to 24 V at 0.06 s and from 24 V to 20 V at 0.12
s. Notably, the DC bus voltage stabilizes precisely at the prescribed reference value of 24
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 11 of 15

5.2. Case 2
The second case assesses the effectiveness of the proposed controller strategy when
subjected to abrupt changes in the input voltage.
In Figure 5, the dynamic response waveforms of the system depict the response to
step changes in Vin , transitioning from 12 V to 24 V at 0.06 s and from 24 V to 20 V at 0.12 s.
Symmetry 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17
Notably, the DC bus voltage stabilizes precisely at the prescribed reference value of 24 V at
the instant of the input voltage shift.

Figure
Figure 5.5.Input
Inputvoltage,
voltage,output
output voltage,
voltage, inductor
inductor current,
current,load
loadcurrent,
current,and
andthe adaptative
the feedback
adaptative feedback
control signal for Case
control signal for Case 2. 2.

5.3.Upon
Case 3close examination of Figure 5, it becomes evident that the adaptive feedback
controlThe third introduced
strategy case examines the proficiency
exhibits a distinct of the adaptive
absence feedbackand
of oscillations controller in track-
showcases signifi-
ing a reference voltage
cantly reduced overshoot. that undergoes step changes. The reference voltage sequence in-
cludes a transition to 24 V in the initial 0.06 s, a subsequent increase to 12 V in the follow-
5.3.
ingCase
0.123s, and then reverting to 34 V for the remaining duration.
Asthird
The illustrated in Figurethe
case examines 6, the DC bus of
proficiency voltage stabilizes
the adaptive in line controller
feedback with the reference
in tracking
voltage alterations, as directed by the adaptive feedback control strategy.
a reference voltage that undergoes step changes. The reference voltage sequence Remarkably, the a
includes
proposedtocontrol
transition 24 V inapproach achieves
the initial 0.06 s, aa subsequent
swifter response rate to
increase and12shorter adjustment
V in the followingtime
0.12 s,
forthen
and the reverting
system. Consequently,
to 34 V for theit remaining
ensures heightened
duration. system stability and superior re-
sistance to interference.
As illustrated in Figure 6, the DC bus voltage stabilizes in line with the reference voltage
alterations, as directed by the adaptive feedback control strategy. Remarkably, the proposed
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 12 of 15

Symmetrycontrol
2024, 16, x approach achieves
a swifter response rate and shorter adjustment time for the system.
FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17

Consequently, it ensures heightened system stability and superior resistance to interference.

Figure 6.inductor
Figure 6. Output voltage, Output voltage, inductor
current, and current, and the adaptative
the adaptative feedback feedback control
control signal
signal forfor Case3.
Case 3.

5.4. Case 4 5.4. Case 4

In this case, we introduce step changes in the resistance as a variable of interest. Fig-
In this case, ure we7introduce step changes in the resistance as a variable of interest.
provides a visual representation of the system’s dynamic response waveforms,
Figure 7 provideswhere a visual representation
R initially stands at 50 Ωofand
thethen
system’s dynamic
transitions to 100 Ωresponse waveforms,
at 0.06 s. As depicted in
where R initially Figure stands7, at DCΩ
the50 and
bus thenis transitions
voltage to 100
adeptly stabilized Ωprescribed
at the at 0.06 s.24As depicted
V reference in
value
Figure 7, the DC bus through the employed
voltage adaptive
is adeptly control strategy.
stabilized Furthermore, 24
at the prescribed upon closer examination
V reference value
of Figure 7, it becomes evident that the adaptive parameters result in diminished over-
through the employed adaptive control strategy. Furthermore, upon closer examination of
shoots for both the bus voltage and inductor current.
SymmetryFigure
2024, 16, x7, it becomes evident that the adaptive parameters result in diminished overshoots
FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17

for both the bus voltage and inductor current.

Figure 7. Output voltage, inductor current, and the adaptative feedback control signal for Case 4.
Figure 7. Output voltage, inductor current, and the adaptative feedback control signal for Case 4.
The simulation results substantiate the efficacy of the provided method and confirm
that the boost converter can successfully control the boost converter with a CPL when it
integrates the recommended output redefinition and control strategy.

6. Conclusions
In this research, we introduce a novel nonlinear adaptive feedback controller de-
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 13 of 15

The simulation results substantiate the efficacy of the provided method and confirm
that the boost converter can successfully control the boost converter with a CPL when it
integrates the recommended output redefinition and control strategy.

6. Conclusions
In this research, we introduce a novel nonlinear adaptive feedback controller designed
for the regulation of a boost converter operating within a DC microgrid with a constant
power load. Our approach is rooted in the principles of exact feedback linearization and
Lyapunov theory.
Upon examining the stability of the zero dynamics of the system, it becomes evident
that controlling the direct capacitor voltage leads to unstable zero dynamics, rendering the
system a nonminimum phase system. We delve into the analysis and simulation of the non-
minimum phase characteristics of the boost converter across various scenarios, including
input voltage variations, load resistance changes, and reference voltage adjustments.
In forthcoming research, we plan to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of
the proposed control strategy and other existing controllers. This analysis will encompass
aspects such as stability, tracking error, switching efficiency, harmonics reduction, current
and voltage ripple, and more, all through a rigorous and systematic methodology.
Our proposed control method effectively addresses the limitations of exact feedback
linearization, notably its reliance on precise mathematical models and its inapplicability
to unstable zero-dynamic systems. Additionally, our approach successfully resolves the
instability issue induced by constant power loads, ensuring the stability of the DC bus voltage.
It is worth noting that the nonlinear adaptive feedback control strategy introduced
in this study has the potential for broader applicability to other converters with constant
power loads, including DC-DC buck boost converters.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.J.; methodology, K.J. and M.A.; software, M.C.; valida-
tion, K.J., M.C. and M.A.; formal analysis, K.J.; investigation, K.J.; resources, K.J.; data curation, K.J.;
writing—original draft preparation, M.A.; writing—review and editing, M.C.; visualization, M.A.;
supervision, K.J.; project administration, M.A.; funding acquisition, M.C. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at University of Business
and Technology (UBT), Jeddah 21361, Saudi Arabia.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rahimi, A.M.; Emadi, A. An analytical investigation of DC/DC power electronic converters with constant power loads in
vehicular power systems. Trans. Veh. Technol. 2009, 58, 2689–2702. [CrossRef]
2. Lu, X.; Sun, K.; Guerrero, J.M.; Vasquez, J.C.; Huang, L.; Wang, J. Stability enhancement based on virtual impedance for dc
microgrids with constant power loads. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2015, 6, 2770–2783. [CrossRef]
3. Chang, X.; Li, Y.; Li, X.; Chen, X. An active damping method based on a supercapacitor energy storage system to overcome
the destabilizing effect of instantaneous constant power loads in DC microgrids. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2017, 32, 36–47.
[CrossRef]
4. Khaligh, A.; Rahimi, A.M.; Emadi, A. Negative Impedance Stabilizing Pulse Adjustment Control Technique for DC/DC Converters
Operating in Discontinuous Conduction Mode and Driving Constant Power Loads. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2007, 56, 2005–2016.
[CrossRef]
5. Zhang, X.; He, W.; Zhang, Y. An Adaptive Output Feedback Controller for Boost Converter. Electronics 2022, 11, 905–914.
[CrossRef]
6. Cespedes, M.; Xing, L.; Sun, J. Constant power load system stabilization by passive damping. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2011,
26, 1832–1836. [CrossRef]
7. Jouili, K.; Madani, A. Nonlinear Lyapunov control of a photovoltaic water pumping system. Energies 2023, 16, 2241. [CrossRef]
8. Jouili, K.; Belhadj, W. Robust stabilization for uncertain non-minimum phase switched nonlinear System under arbitrary
switchings. Symmetry 2023, 15, 596. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 14 of 15

9. Rahimi, A.; Emadi, A. Discontinuous-Conduction Mode DC/DC Converters Feeding Constant-Power Loads. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2010, 57, 1318–1329. [CrossRef]
10. Kwasinski, A.; Krein, P.T. Stabilization of constant power loads in dc-dc converters using passivity-based control. In Proceedings of
the INTELEC 07–29th International Telecommunications Energy Conference, Rome, Italy, 30 September–4 October 2007; pp. 867–874.
11. Zeng, J.; Zhang, Z.; Qiao, W. An interconnection and damping assignment passivity-based controller for a dc-dc boost converter
with a constant power load. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2014, 50, 2314–2322. [CrossRef]
12. Kwasinski, A. Dynamic behavior and stabilization of dc microgrids with instantaneous constant-power loads. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron. 2011, 26, 822–834. [CrossRef]
13. Villarroel, F.A.; Espinoza, J.R.; Pérez, M.A.; Ramírez, R.O.; Baier, C.R.; Sbárbaro, D.; Silva, J.J.; Reyes, M.A. Stable Shortest Horizon
FCS-MPC Output Voltage Control in Non-Minimum Phase Boost-Type Converters Based on Input-State Linearization. IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers. 2021, 36, 1378–1390. [CrossRef]
14. Byrnes, C.; Isidori, A.; Willems, J. Passivity, feedback equivalence, and the global stabilization of minimum phase nonlinearsystems.
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1991, 36, 1228–1240. [CrossRef]
15. Singh, S.; Gautam, A.R.; Fulwani, D. Constant power loads and their effects in DC distributed power systems: A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 407–421. [CrossRef]
16. Li, Y.; Vannorsdel, K.R.; Zirger, A.J.; Norris, M.; Maksimovic, D. Current mode control for boost converters with constant power
loads. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. 2012, 59, 198–206. [CrossRef]
17. Santi, E.; Li, D.; Monti, A.; Stankovic, A.M. A geometric approach to large-signal stability of switching converters under sliding
mode control and synergetic control. In Proceedings of the Power Electronics Specialists Conference, Recife, Barazil, 16 June 2005;
pp. 1389–1395.
18. Jouili, K. Robuststabilization of non-minimum phase switched nonlinear systems with uncertainty. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. 2020,
33, 289–311.
19. Zengshi, C.; Wenzhong, G.; Jiangang, H.; Xiao, Y. Closed-Loop Analysis and Cascade Control of a Nonminimum Phase Boost
Converter. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2011, 26, 1237–1252.
20. Mahmoudi, H.; Aleenejad, M.; Ahmadi, R. A new modulated model predictive control method for mitigation of effects of constant
power loads. In Proceedings of the IEEE Power and Energy Conference at Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA, 19–20 February 2016; pp. 1–5.
21. Emadi, A.; Khaligh, A.; Rivetta, C.; Williamson, G. Constant power loads and negative impedance instability in automotive
systems: Definition, modeling, stability, and control of power electronic converters and motor drives. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.
2006, 55, 1112–1125. [CrossRef]
22. Zhao, Y.; Qiao, W.; Ha, D. A sliding-mode duty-ratio controller for dc/dc buck converters with constant power loads. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl. 2014, 50, 1448–1458. [CrossRef]
23. Baev, S.; Sheessel, Y. Causal output tracking in nonminimum phase boost DC/DC converter using sliding mode techniques. In
Proceedings of the 2009 American Control Conference, St. Louis, MO, USA, 10–12 June 2009; pp. 77–82.
24. Talebi, H.A.; Patel, R.V.; Khorasani, K. Control of Flexible-Link Manipulators Using Neural Networks; Springer Science & Business
Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; p. 261.
25. Sira-Ramirez, H.; Ortega, R. Passivity-basedcontrollers for the stabilization of dc-to-dc power converters, Decision and Control. In
Proceedings of the 1995 34th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, New Orleans, LA, USA, 13–15 December 1995; Volume 4,
pp. 3471–3476.
26. Escobar, G.; Ortega, R.; Sira-Ramirez, H.; Vilain, J.; Zein, I. An experimental comparison of several nonlinear controllers for power
converters. IEEE Control. Syst. Mag. 1999, 19, 66–82.
27. Ortega, R.; Perez, J.A.L.; Nicklasson, P.J.; Sira-Ramirez, H. Passivity-Based Control of Euler-Lagrange Systems: Mechanical, Electrical
and Electromechanical Applications; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
28. Slotine, J.-J.E.; Li, W. Applied Nonlinear Control; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1991.
29. Roshan, Y.M.; Moallem, M. Control of nonminimum phase loadcurrent in a boost converterusing output redefinition. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 2014, 29, 5054–5062. [CrossRef]
30. Jouili, K.; Braiek, N.B. Controllers design for stabilization of non-minimum phase of switched nonlinear systems. JCEAI Control.
Eng. Appl. Inform. J. 2019, 21, 21–30.
31. Alam, Z.; Ghosh, S.K.; Alkhateeb, A.F.; Roy, T.K.; Islam, M.S.; Saha, S.; Hussain, M.A. Robust hybrid nonlinear control approach
for stability enhancement of a constant power load DC-DC boost converter. Alex. Eng. J. 2023, 74, 535–545. [CrossRef]
32. Rahimi, A.; Khalilgh, A.; Emadi, A. Sub-Harmonic Problem in Multi-Converter Vehicular Power Systems. In Proceedings of the
2006 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, Windsor, UK, 6–8 September 2006.
33. Antonio, M.; Licea, R. Polytopic Robust Stability for a Dual-Capacitor Boost Converter in Symmetric and Non-Symmetric
Configurations. Symmetry 2022, 14, 2331–2339.
34. Emadi, A.; Ehsani, M. Negative impedance stabilizing controls for pwm dc-dc converters using feedback linearization techniques,
Collection of Technical Papers. In Proceedings of the 35th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit,
Las Vegas, NV, USA, 24–28 July 2000; Volume 1, pp. 613–620.
35. Trujillo, S.C.; Candelo-Becerra, J.E.; Hoyos, F.E. Numerical Validation of a Boost Converter Controlled by a Quasi-Sliding Mode
Control Technique with Bifurcation Diagrams. Symmetry 2022, 14, 694–709. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2024, 16, 352 15 of 15

36. Zhou, J.; Hassan, M.A.; Zhang, J.; Hou, M.; Wu, S.; Xing, G.; Chi, S. Stabilization of Constant Power Loads in DC Microgrid
Systems Using an Adaptive Continuous Control Set Model Predictive Control. Symmetry 2021, 13, 1112–1140. [CrossRef]
37. Bhavani, S.; Sivaprakasam, A. Dual Mode Symmetrical Proportional Resonant Controlled Quadratic Boost Converter for
PMSM-Drive. Symmetry 2023, 15, 147–166. [CrossRef]
38. Jiarong, W.; Yimin, L. Adaptive Backstepping Sliding Mode Control for Boost Converter with Constant Power Load. IEEE Access
2019, 7, 50797–50807.
39. Villarroel, F.A.; Espinoza, J.R.; Pérez, M.A.; Ramírez, R.O.; Baier, C.R.; Sbárbaro, D.; Silva, J.J.; Reyes, M.A. A Predictive Shortest-
Horizon Voltage Control Algorithm for Non-Minimum Phase Three-Phase Rectifiers. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 107598–107615.
[CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.