2014 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES)

Internal Model Control of dc-dc Boost Converter

Exhibiting Non-minimum Phase Behavior
K. Tarakanath1, Sachin Patwardhan2, Vivek Agarwal3
1
Student Member, IEEE,3Sr. Member, IEEE
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Mumbai, India
1
tarakanath@ee.iitb.ac.in, 2sachinp@che.iitb.ac.in, 3agarwal@ee.iitb.ac.in

Abstract—This paper investigates the application of two
degree-of-freedom (2DOF) internal model controller (IMC)
design approach for output voltage regulation of representative
boost type dc–dc converter operated in continuous conduction
mode (CCM). This system exhibits non-minimum phase behavior
due to occurrence of a RHP zero, which poses limitation in the
bandwidth available for any control scheme. The IMC structure
provides an alternate parameterization of the conventional
feedback controllers and is relatively easy to tune to achieve
satisfactory servo and regulatory behavior simultaneously. To
demonstrate the effectiveness of this 2DOF-IMC control scheme,
simulation studies have been conducted using SIMULINK
platform under different servo and regulatory scenarios. To
begin with, simulations are carried out with plant dynamics
simulated using linear transfer functions. To assess the feasibility
of using the proposed IMC controller on an experimental setup,
the plant dynamics are later simulated using a nonlinear dynamic
model. The simulation results clearly imply that the proposed
IMC performs better than the PID controller in linear as well as
nonlinear simulations. Moreover, the performance of the IMC
tuned using the linear simulation does not change significantly
when used for operating the nonlinear plant.
Keywords—DC-DC Boost converter, Internal Model Control
(IMC), continuous conduction mode (CCM), Voltage regulation,
Two degree-of-freedom (2DOF).
I. INTRODUCTION
In the last three decades, there is an increasing demand of
switch mode power supplies (SMPS) due to their utilization in
the application areas of renewable energy, communication,
computers, automobiles, aerospace etc. Among the various
modulation techniques used for SMPS control,
PULSEWIDTH-MODULATION (PWM) dc-dc converters are
most popular and are used at different power levels. This type
of modulated dc-dc converters are advantageous due to their
high conversion ratios between input-output, high efficiency
and constant frequency of operation. The three basic non-
isolated power electronic circuits are buck, boost and buck-
boost. These DC-DC converters are inherently switching
nonlinear and time variant systems and are subjected to
varying input voltage changes and wide range of load
variations, which renders the task of controlling these
converters difficult and challenging. Among these
configurations, DC-DC boost type converters are widely used
in pollution free renewable energy applications, such as in fuel
cell and solar PV power conditioning systems, where the
required output voltage is more than the input voltage. The
control of boost type converters, is more difficult than their
counterpart, i.e. buck type converters. The boost type
converters exhibit non-minimum phase behavior when
operated in continuous conduction mode (CCM) and their duty
ration-to-output voltage transfer function shows the presence
of right-half plane (RHP) zero [1]. This right-half plane (RHP)
zero becomes an upper bound in the achievable gain cross over
frequency, i.e. it limits the bandwidth [2] due to the
considerable amount of phase lag caused by the location of
this zero. The dependence of RHP zero location on the
inductor current’s average value is that, a positive change in
the inductor current shifts the location of RHP zero towards
lower frequencies, and this causes considerable phase lag [3].
This puts a limit on the achievable bandwidth of the boost
converter resulting in slow transient response. The RHP zero
in the plant transfer function causes the controller to operate in
wrong direction during the initial transient phase and hence,
affects the transient response. Thus, a controller with sufficient
gain and phase margin is needed to operate a boost type
converter in a stable region.
When the boost converter is operated in the discontinuous-
conduction-mode (DCM), it doesn’t have RHP zero problem.
However, in DCM the current stress on the main switch
increases due to increase in discontinuous input current and it
causes deterioration of the EMI characteristics [4]. Thus, only
CCM operation is considered in this work.
The main objective in controlling a DC-DC converter is to
obtain a desired output voltage in the presence of perturbations
in output load and change in input voltage. The conventional
approach to control a boost type converter is to employ a PID
controller. However, in recent years, different linear control
design techniques [5-6], such as H-infinity control or µ-
synthesis, have been applied to regulate the output voltage of
dc-dc converters. These approaches are based on the small
signal model obtained by state space averaging [7]. In [5] the
conventional H-infinity loop shaping technique was applied to
a boost converter but this controller design approach cannot
accommodate specifications on reference tracking and
disturbance rejection simultaneously. In [6], the µ synthesis
approach of designing robust controller has been applied to dc-
dc buck-boost converter to handle unstructured uncertainty.

978-1-4799-6373-7/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

 Most of the available approaches employ the conventional
feedback control structure for controlling the dc-dc converters.
Internal model control structure (see Figure 1), on the other
hand, offers an alternate parameterization of the controller.
The IMC structure offers several advantages over conventional
feedback [8]:
(i)In the absence of model plant mismatch, the design problem
in IMC framework reduces to synthesizing a feed-forward
controller, which is significantly easier than feedback
controller design.
(ii)This control structure facilitates explicit modulation of
model-plant mismatch (MPM) / unmeasured disturbances and
thereby improves the robustness of the controller. A filter is
added in the feedback path to moderate the effects of MPM/
unmeasured disturbances. The tuning of this filter so as to
achieve robustness and good disturbance rejection is relatively
easy when compared with the tuning of parameters involved in
conventional feedback control schemes for achieving
robustness.
(iii)Closed-loop performance specifications like settling time
are related to filter tuning parameters, which makes on-line
tuning very convenient.
(iv)For unmeasured disturbances, the IMC controller can be
designed to play the role of a feed-forward controller
(v)Allows two degrees of freedom (DOF) design technique,
which can be used to achieve both reference tracking (through
pre-filter) and disturbance rejection (through feedback
controller) simultaneously.
To the best of authors’ knowledge, only two applications of
IMC to the control of boost type converter have been reported
in the literature [10, 14]. In the simulation studies presented in
these works, it is assumed that the plant is linear and perfectly
known, i.e. there is no model plant mismatch. However, in
practice, it is always difficult to have an exact model of the
plant. Model plant mismatch (MPM) exists due to linearization
errors and due to changing operating conditions. For highly
nonlinear plants, the plant gain can be off by 20-50% from the
linearized model gain [11]. Unlike the conventional feedback
structure, the IMC structure provides an explicit handle to deal
with the MPM. Hence, this paper takes into account of tuning
the filters for model plant mismatch (MPM) scenario.
In the present work, it is desired to design a two DOF linear
IMC controller [8, 9] (see Fig. 1) to achieve simultaneous
output voltage regulation and disturbance rejection for boost
type dc-dc converter. To begin with, a two DOF linear IMC
controller is designed using a linear perturbation model
developed at a desired operating point. Initially, the closed loop
performance of the controller is studied under no plant-model
mismatch conditions. To examine the performance in a more
realistic scenario, the plant is then simulated using nonlinear
model derived from the first principles, which introduces model
plant mismatch (MPM). It is demonstrated that the IMC filter
parameters can be used as tuning knobs to achieve satisfactory
servo and regulatory performance under moderate MPM
conditions.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II briefly
presents details of the Internal Model Control (IMC) structure,
its design procedure and its properties. Section III gives a
detailed description about the application of 2DOF-IMC
scheme to boost type dc-dc converter and design of
conventional PID control based on Bode frequency response
plots. Section IV gives a detailed description of the comparison
of 2DOF-IMC and PID control through MATLAB/Simulink
platform. The conclusions reached through the simulation
studies are presented in Section V.
II. INTERNAL MODEL CONTROL STRUCTURE AND
DESIGN PROCEDURE
A. IMC Structure
The systems under consideration are open loop stable.
The internal model control structure for controlling such
system is illustrated using Fig. 1. The attractive feature of IMC
structure oriented control scheme is the use of model in
parallel with the plant. The difference between the measured
output and the model output is used as a feedback signal. This
signal contains explicit information on MPM and unmeasured
disturbances. Moreover, because of the parallel path, an
estimation of the effect of manipulated variables on the plant
output can be analyzed through model based prediction. Thus,
IMC is a predictive structure control scheme [8].

P(s)
.
Fig. 1. Schematic of a 2DOF - Internal Model Control Structure.
Using the standard rules of block diagram manipulation,
the following expressions can be derived for the closed loop
system:
⎡ P ( s )C1 ( s ) ⎤
y(s) = ⎢  ( s )] ⎥
r (s)
⎣ 1 + C1 ( s ) Fd (s) [ P ( s ) − P ⎦
(1)
⎡ 1 − C d (s) P ( s ) ⎤
+⎢
 ( s )] ⎥ d
P ( s ) × d (s)
⎣ 1 + C1 ( s ) Fd (s) [ P ( s ) − P ⎦
The controller design involves choosing C1(s) and filters in
the feed-forward and feedback path. For perfect model
representation, P ( s ) = P ( s ) and from (1):
(i) Achieving perfect set-point tracking when no disturbance is
applied is equivalent to:
1
C1 ( s ) = (2)

P( s)
(ii)Achieving perfect disturbance rejection in regulation mode,
is equivalent to:
1
Cd ( s ) = (3)
P ( s )
The condition (ii) is analogous to condition (i). Hence in
the design of IMC controller, inverse of the plant model is
used to achieve perfect set-point response and disturbance
rejection. So, theoretically zero error can be achieved for both
set-point tracking and disturbance rejection. But, for the non-
minimum phase systems (i.e. with time delays and / or right-
half plane zeros), when model inverse is utilized, it leads to
unstable controller due to unbounded control signal which is
called as “internal instability”. Therefore, when a plant has
RHP zero, it must be factored out before using in controller
design such that the resulting controller is stable and
realizable.
IMC Design Procedure
Following is the design methodology of IMC [8]:
(1) In the absence of MPM and disturbances, equation (1)
reduces to:
y ( s ) = ⎡⎣ P ( s )C1( s ) ⎤⎦ r ( s ) + ⎡⎣1−Cd (s) P ( s ) ⎤⎦ Pd ( s ) × d (s)
To design the controller, the model is factored into a minimum
phase component (consisting of LHP poles and zeros) and a
non-minimum phase component (consisting of time delays and
RHP zeros).
+ −
P ( s) = P ( s) P ( s)
Here ‘+’ indicates the non-minimum phase component,
which is non-invertible, and ‘-’indicates the minimum phase
component, which is invertible. The factorization of plant
model can be done based on either Integral Absolute Error
(IAE) or Integral Square Error (ISE) performance indices [9].
In this work, Integral Absolute Error (IAE) is considered for
factorization of plant model.
(2) Design of C1(s): It consists of an invertible portion of the
 − (s) and cascade with a low-pass filter, Fr(s)
plant model, P
such that C1(s) becomes proper.
(
- -1
C1 (s) = P ( s ) × Fr (s) ) (6)
1 explicit handles to ensure robustness in the face of MPM
where Fr (s) = n , and n is the relative order of the
( λr s + 1)
inverted part of the plant model and λr is the tuning
parameter. In the absence of MPM and disturbances, this filter
decides the servo response of the system.
(3) Design of Filter in the feedback path [9]: To achieve
optimal disturbance rejection, this filter is designed as follows:
m
i that the plant must be stable.
∑α s
Fd (s) = i =0 i
( )
m
λd s + 1
where α 0 = 1 λd is a filter tuning parameter, and m is the
,
number of poles in disturbance transfer function Pd(s) to be
cancelled by the zeros of ⎡⎣1 − Cd ( s ) P ( s ) ⎤⎦ for effective
disturbance rejection. The filter poles in the feedback path
have two fold tasks: shape the feedback signal to the controller
and there by shape the regulatory response and make Fd(s) a
proper realizable transfer function. Given values of tuning
parameters ( λr, λd), the value of αi can be found by solving the
following equation for each m distinct poles of the disturbance
transfer function, Pd(s) that has to be removed:
(1 − Cd ( s ) P ( s ) ) s=− 1 = 0 , i = 1, 2..........m . where τi is the
τi
time constant associated with the ith pole of˜ Pd(s).
Thus, in summary, the IMC controller consists of two
tunable shaping filters and a feed-forward controller (with
respect to the manipulated inputs) related as follows:
(
- -1
C1 (s) = P ( s ) )
× Fr (s) , Cd (s) = C1 (s) × Fd (s)
2
1 α 2 s + α1s + 1
Fr (s) = n , Fd (s) = m
(
λr s + 1 ) (
λd s + 1 )
The choice of the filter parameter λr and λd depends on the
closed loop servo specifications and allowable noise
amplification. In the industrial practice, the following criterion
is used while tuning the filter [9]:
(4)
Cd ( ∞ )
≤ 20 (8)
Cd (0)
IMC structure can be viewed as an alternate
parameterization of the conventional feedback controller. A
(5) significant benefit of the IMC structure is that the design
procedure for Cd(s) is simple and inherent than the direct
design of a classical feedback controller C(s). Through
algebraic transformations, IMC control structure can be
transformed into the conventional feedback control structure
via, and vice-versa using (9). So, any IMC can be put into the
conventional feedback form by,
Cd ( s )
C (s) = (9)
1 − Cd ( s ) P ( s )
Equation (9) allows a straightforward parameterization of
all stabilizing controllers C(s) for the plant in terms of Cd(s)
[9]. With interchangeable structures, the advantage of using
IMC over conventional feedback is that the design of Cd(s) is
much easier than C(s). Moreover, the IMC structure gives
through the tunable filter in the feedback path.
For perfect control ( P ( s ) = P ( s ) ), the feedback signal is
equal to the effect of disturbances and the IMC structure
highlights the disturbance for feedback correction. Thus, the
system becomes open-loop in effect and the stability problems
connected with feedback get vanished. The overall controlled
system would be stable, provided both the plant and the IMC
controller are stable. The limitation in IMC control design is
(7) B. Properties of IMC
Some properties that show the advantages of IMC structure
are [12, 13] as follows:
(a)Dual Stability Criterion: In the nonexisitence of plant-
model mismatch,; the overall system becomes simply an open
loop and "closed loop stability" is confined by the stability of
both controller and plant. The closed-loop response
becomes:
y(s) = ⎡⎣ p (s) C (s)⎤⎦ r (s) + ⎡1 − p (s) C (s) ⎤ P ( s ) d(s) (10)
1 ⎣ d ⎦ d
The IMC structure promises nominal closed-loop stability
for all stable controllers, when compared with the classical
feedback structure. In other words, this property describes that
in the event of nonexistence of MPM, the stability issues are
insignificant with IMC structure, until the system is open-loop
stable. In the classical feedback structure, on the other hand,
there is an ambiguity in the direct selection of controller C(s)
type and its parameters, which can ensure the closed loop
stability.
(b)Perfect controller: under the assumption P ( s ) = P ( s ) and
open-loop stable plant, the perfect control performance could
be achieved if an invertible portion of dynamic model is used
in the controller.
 For perfect controller, (1) becomes: −5
0.48179(1 + 2 × 10 s)(1 + 0.010363s)
+ + Pd1 ( s ) = (16)
y( s ) = P ( s ) r( s ) + [1 − P ( s )]Pd ( s ) d ( s ) (11) −7 2
(5.0105 × 10 s + 0.00015692 s + 1)
+ −5
The non-invertible portion of dynamic model P ( s) poses 1.5(1 + 2 × 10 s)
Pd 2 ( s ) = (17)
the limit on achievable control quality. This is an inherent −7 2
(5.0105 × 10 s + 0.00015692 s + 1)
limitation and cannot be nullified by any control system
Table 1. Parameters of the DC-DC boost converter used for this study
(c) Zero Steady-state Offset: The controller with steady-state
gain is equal to the inverse of the model gain yields zero Parameter Numerical values
offset. From (9), it confirms the integral control action, as Vin(V) 50
expected. R(Ω) 56.26
An application of IMC structure to regulate the output L(mH) 2.2
voltage of boost type dc-dc converter has been presented in the C(µF) 100
next section D 0.33904
RL(Ω) 0.1
III. APPLICATION TO DC-DC BOOST CONVERTER Rc(Ω) 0.2
Vo(V) 75
The control problem under consideration is regulation of
the output voltage of a boost converter, which exhibits non- The factorization of plant model is done based on Integral
minimum phase behavior. A schematic diagram of the boost Absolute Error (IAE) performance index and it is as follows:
converter is shown in Fig. 2. The following plant transfer The invertible part of plant model:
function of boost converter is shown in (12) [2] and its
corresponding parameters are listed in Table 1. −5
− 111.3338(1 + 2 × 10 s)
P ( s ) = (18)
−7 2
(5.0105 × 10 s + 0.00015692 s + 1)
and the non-invertible part of plant model :
+ −5
P ( s ) = (1 − 9.0448 × 10 s) (19)
In Fig. (1), the controller C1(s) and the filter Fd(s) are:

Fig. 2. Schematic of the boost type dc-dc converter. (

- -1
C1 (s) = P ( s ) × Fr (s))
−7 2 (20)
5.0105 × 10 s + 0.00015692 s + 1
V (1 + CRc s) ⎡ R 2 (1 − D ) 2 − ( R + Rc )( Req + Ls ) ⎤ =
0 ⎣ ⎦ (12) −5 2
P ( s ) = 111.3338(1 + 2 × 10 s) × ( λr s + 1)
(1 − D ) den(s)

where 2
α s +α s +1
Fd (s) = 2 1 (21)
den( s ) = R (1 − D ) ⎡⎣ R (1 − D ) + Rc (1 + C ( R + Rc ) s )⎤⎦ 2
( λd s + 1 )
+ ( R + Rc )( Req + Ls ) (1 + C ( R + Rc ) s )
The parameter of the filter in the forward path i.e. λr, is
−5 −5 chosen as 2ms. This choice was based on the servo response
111.3338(1 + 2 × 10 s)(1 − 9.0448 × 10 s) expected from the boost converter under consideration. The
P ( s ) = −7 2
(13)
(5.0105 × 10 s + 0.00015692 s + 1) parameter of filter in the feedback path was selected as
λd=0.1ms. The values of the remaining filter parameters in the
Equation (13) shows that control-to-output transfer feedback path corresponding filter tuning parameters λr=2ms,
function of a boost converter is similar to a second-order low-
λd= 0.1ms are α 2 = 4.5083e-06, α1 = 0.001825. It may be
pass filter, which consists of a complex-conjugate pole pair,
RHP-zero and ESR-zero. The cut off frequency of low-pass noted that a single filter in the feedback path suffices for both
the disturbances as the denominator polynomials for both the
filter is given as ωo =
(1 − D ) disturbance transfer functions are identical.
LC A. Design Of Conventional Single Loop Feedback PID
(14) controller:
and the location of RHP zero is given as The conventional approach to control boost type dc-dc
converter is using a PID controller. Thus, as a reference, the
(1 − D )
2
2
R Req boost type dc-dc converter system has been compensated
ω RHP = − (15) using a conventional single loop PID controller given by (22).
L(R + R ) c
L The PID tuning parameters are designed using the procedure
outlined in [1]. The uncompensated system has gain margin
From (14) and (15) it can be observed that both wo and 7.2dB and Phase margin of -38.87° at 2.46×103 rad/s. It may
ωRHP are the functions of nominal duty cycle. be noted that the achievable closed loop bandwidth is limited
The major disturbances in a dc-dc converter are by the RHP zero. Maximum achievable bandwidth for the
fluctuations in source voltage and load current. Their boost converter under consideration is limited to [RHP ZERO
disturbance transfer functions are respectively given as: / 5, RHP ZERO / 2] [15]. To strike a balance between servo
and regulatory responses, the PID controller is designed such
that the compensated system has a gain margin of 24.14dB at
1.56×104 rad/s and phase margin of 51.38 ° at a gain cross
over frequency of 1.95×103 rad/s. Table 2. Comparative Linear Simulation Analysis of IMC and PID
Ki Kd s Contr- Distur- Pertur- Settling IAE
C (s) = K p + + (22) oller bance -bation time
s 1 + sτ f type Direction (ms)
where Output Increase 11.7 0.0409
−6 voltage
K p = 0.00562, K i = 0.975, K d = 3.15 × 10 ,τ f = 7.1 × 10−5 reference
Decrease 11.7 0.0409
IMC Source Increase 11.2 0.0185
Voltage
Decrease 11.2 0.0185
Load 60% 11.8 0.0024
increase
Output Increase 52 0.0917
voltage
Decrease 50.5 0.0919
reference
PID Source Increase 46 0.0691
Voltage
Decrease 46.5 0.0691
Load 60% 12.4 0.0054
increase

To examine the feasibility of employing the proposed IMC

controller in an experimental setup, the servo and regulatory
Fig. 3. Frequency response of uncompensated and compensated boost type simulation experiments carried out using the linear plant
dc-dc converter. simulation were repeated by simulating the plant behavior
using Simpowersystems Toolbox of SIMULINK. The
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS parameters of the converter system have been reported in
In this section, comparative simulation study of the closed Table 1. The results of the servo control experiments are
loop performances obtained using the proposed IMC and the reported in Figures 6 and the results of the regulatory control
PID controller is presented under different servo and experiments are reported in Figure 7. The tuning parameters of
regulatory scenarios. The PWM DC-DC boost converter is IMC and PID are identical to that of the linear simulation
operated in CCM mode at a switching frequency of 40 kHz. study. In particular, no additional tuning of IMC filter
The dynamic performances of the controllers are compared on parameters in the feedback path was necessary even when
the basis of: (a) settling time and (b) integral absolute error MPM is introduced due to the nonlinear plant simulation. It is
criteria. All simulations were performed using MATLAB and interesting to note that the settling time obtained and
SIMULINK. When it is desired to simulate the nonlinear plant qualitative behavior of the closed loop using the nonlinear
dynamics of the boost converter, the boost converter model in plant simulation are almost identical to that of the linear
the Simpowersystems Toolbox has been employed with simulation studies. However, with reference to the linear plant
appropriate modifications of the model parameters. simulation, the IAE values obtained through the nonlinear
plant simulation are higher for IMC as well as PID controller.
To begin with, the plant dynamics are simulated using This can be attributed to chattering phenomenon in the output
linear perturbation model given by (13), (16) and (17). voltage introduced because of the switching action.
Following cases have been studied:
Table 3 Comparative Nonlinear Simulation Analysis of IMC and PID.
• A positive change in the reference output voltage
introduced at time t = 0.1 s (see Figure 4(a)). Contr- Distur- Pertur- Settling IAE
oller bance type -bation time
• A negative change of -10 V in the reference output voltage Direction (ms)
introduced at time t = 0.3 s (Figure 4(b)) 11.7 0.0576
Output Increase
It is evident from these figures, that the proposed IMC voltage
controller is able to achieve very quick transition to the desired Decrease 11.7 0.049
reference
voltage with considerably less settling time when compared IMC Source Increase 11.2 0.0313
with the closed loop response obtained using the PID Voltage
controller. To evaluate the regulatory behavior, the following Decrease 11.2 0.0393
two cases were examined Load 60% 11.8 0.0333
• Positive and negative step changes of magnitude 5 V in increase
the source voltage of boost converter (Figure 5(a) and Output Increase 52 0.7229
5(b)) voltage
Decrease 50.5 0.7204
reference
• A positive (60%) step change in the load current (Figure PID Source Increase 46 0.0581
5(c))
Voltage
These figures demonstrate that the proposed IMC Decrease 46.5 0.0917
controller outperforms the PID controller even in the Load 60% 12.4 0.0424
regulatory behavior. Superior performance obtained using the increase
proposed IMC controller is also clearly reflected in the
performance indices tabulated in Table 2.
 Fig. 5. Comparison of regulatory behavior of PID and IMC control schemes
in linear simulation.

Fig. 4. Comparison of servo behavior of PID and IMC control schemes in

linear simulation.

Fig. 6. Comparison of servo behavior of PID and IMC control schemes in

linear simulation.
 [8] M. Morari and E. Zafiriou, “Robust Process Control", Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1989.
[9] C. Brosilow and B. Joseph, “Techniques of model-based control”. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 2002.
[10] R. De Keyser, J. Bonilla, and C. Ionescu, “A comparative study of several
control techniques applied to a boost converter”, in Proc. IEEE 10th Int. Conf.
Optim. Elect.Electron.Equip. OPTIM, Brasov, Romania, 2006.
[11] W. Bequette, “Process dynamics: modeling, analysis and simulation",
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1998.
[12] C.E. García, M. Morari, “Internal model control—1. A unifying review
and some new results", Ind. Engng Chem. Process Des. Dev., 21 pp. 308–323,
1982.
[13] D.E. Rivera, M. Morari, S. Skogestad, “Internal model control. 4. PID
controller design", Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, 25 (1), pp. 252–265, 1986.
[14] I Gadoura, T.Suntio, and K Zenger , “Improved stability properties of
boost and buck-boost converters using IMC-based controller", in Proc. PCIM
2001 (Europe), Nurnberg, Germany, pp. 527-532, 2001.
[15] K.J. Astrom, “Model uncertainty and robust control design", Cosy
Workshop—ESF Course, Valencia, Spain, 1999.

Fig. 7. Comparison of regulatory behavior of PID and IMC control schemes

in nonlinear simulation.

V. CONCLUSION
In this work, an internal model principle based control
scheme has been used for the output voltage regulation of dc-
dc boost converter operated in CCM mode. The IMC structure
provides an alternate parameterization of the conventional
feedback controllers and is relatively easy to tune to achieve
satisfactory closed loop behavior and robustness against model
plant mismatch simultaneously. Efficacy of the proposed IMC
scheme has been evaluated by extensive simulation study
using a linear as well as a nonlinear dynamic model of a dc-dc
boost converter. The simulation results clearly show that the
proposed IMC performs better than the PID controller in servo
as well as regulatory behavior in the linear as well as the
nonlinear plant simulations. Moreover, the performance of the
IMC tuned using the linear simulation does not change
significantly when used for operating the nonlinear plant.
Future scope of the work would be experimental
implementation of IMC control scheme on an actual boost
type dc-dc converter.
REFERENCES
[1] R.W. Erickson and D. Maksimovic, “Fundamental of Power Electronics”,
2nd ed. Kluwer, 2001, Newyork.
[2] Astrom, K. J., and Hagglund, T. “Advanced PID control”, ISA-The
Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society; Research Triangle Park,
NC 27709, 2006.
[3] C. Sreekumar, and V. Agarwal, “A Hybrid Control Algorithm for Voltage
Regulation in DC–DC Boost Converter”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2530, 2538, June 2008.
[4] J. Sun, D. M. Mitchell, M. F. Greuel, P. T. Krein, and R. M. Bass,
“Averaged modeling of PWM converters operating in discontinuous
conduction mode,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 16, pp. 482–492, July.
2001.
[5] R. Naim, G. Weiss, and S. Ben Yaakov, “H∞ control applied to boost
power converters”, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 12, no. 4,
pp. 677, 683, Jul 1997.
[6] S. Buso, “Design of a robust voltage controller for a buck-boost converter
using μ-synthesis", IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 222-229, Mar 1999.
[7] R.D. Middlebrook and S. Cuk, “A general unified approach to modeling
switching-Converter power stages”, in Proc. IEEE PESC, 1976, pp. 18–34.