PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 30, 2026Technologies0 citationsOpen Access

Charger/Discharger with a Limited Current Derivative and Regulated Bus Voltage: A Simultaneous Converter-Controller Design

View Full Paper
CRCarlos Andrés Ramos-PajaEHElkin Edilberto Henao‐BravoSSSergio Ignacio Serna-Garcés

Key Points

  • To design a bidirectional battery charger/discharger with controlled current and regulated bus voltage.
  • Developed a co-design methodology combining power and control stages of a bidirectional charger/discharger.
  • Utilized a boost converter topology to limit battery current derivative and enhance safety.
  • Implemented a cascade structure with sliding mode and adaptive PI controllers for voltage regulation.
  • Constrained switching frequency to minimize power losses in the system.
  • Achieved current/voltage regulation with lower than 5% overshoot and settling times under 5 ms.
  • Maintained battery current limitation to less than 50 A/ms using sliding mode control with improved efficiency over PI control.
  • Demonstrated that the sliding mode controller was 2.5–5.0% more efficient than the PI controller.

Abstract

This paper proposes a co-design methodology for the power and control stages of a bidirectional battery charger/discharger based on a boost converter topology. The approach ensures safe operation by limiting the battery current derivative, preventing abrupt transients that could degrade battery lifespan. The control strategy combines a cascade structure with an inner sliding mode current controller (for robustness and fast response) and an outer adaptive PI voltage loop (to regulate the DC-link voltage under varying load conditions). Additionally, the design constrains the switching frequency to reduce power losses. Experimental validation on a prototype converter demonstrates the effectiveness of the co-design framework, showing precise current/voltage regulation, adherence to switching frequency limits, and compliance with battery charging/discharging requirements. The results highlight the methodology’s potential to enhance efficiency and reliability in energy storage systems. The dynamic restrictions, overshoot lower than 5%, settling time shorter than 5 ms, and a battery current limitation less than 50 A/ms were always met with SMC and, in some cases, with the PI controller, but the results with SMC were always better: lower overshoot, shorter settling time, and greater restriction on the derivative of the battery current. In addition, the SMC system was 2.5–5.0% more efficient than the PI controller.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ramos-Paja et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f2a42a8c0f03fd67763328https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies14050257
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper