International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2023, pp. 1615~1623

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v14.i3.pp1615-1623  1615

Sliding-mode control for boost converters under voltage and

load variations

Mariam K. Shehata1, Hossam E. Mostafa Attia1, Nagwa F. Ibrahim1, Basem E. Elnaghi2

1
Department of Power and Electrical Machines, Faculty of Technology and Education, Suez University, Suez, Egypt
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Boost converters are employed in DC motors, switch-mode power supplies,
and other applications. Practical implementation difficulties, reliance on
Received Dec 31, 2022 variable-frequency units, and delayed dynamic responses to changes in load
Revised Mar 20, 2023 and voltage are the main drawbacks of different control methods for the boost
Accepted Mar 30, 2023 converter. In this paper, two techniques were proposed with the target of
controlling the boost converter to improve the efficiency of the converter's
performance. The two techniques used in this paper depended on fixed-
Keywords: frequency mode instead of variable-frequency mode because of the demerits
of the latter factor. The first technique is the sliding-mode control for the AC-
Boost converter topology DC converter to achieve power factor correction and reduce the harmonic ratio
Power factor correction significantly while regulating the output voltage. This technique was used for
Sliding-mode current control the DC-DC converter to obtain a rapid dynamic response to control sudden or
Two-loop cascade control considerable changes in loads or input voltages with a regulated output
Total harmonic distortion voltage. Moreover, the two-loop cascade control is the second proposed
Unity power factor technique for the DC-DC converter to achieve an excellent dynamic response
under step loads or input voltage variations with an excellently regulated
output voltage. Re-simulation results validated the proposed design approach
and illustrated the proposed controller's robustness and faster response time.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Mariam K. Shehata
Department of Power and Electrical Machines, Faculty of Technology and Education, Suez University
Suez, El-Salam 43512, Egypt
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Power converters are used in hybrid electric vehicles, uninterruptible power supplies, and other applications
to save energy. Power factor correction (PFC) is needed to make the input current have the same phase as the source
voltage. PFC can be done in numerous techniques, such as peak current control and average current control by pulse
width modulation. Engineers are interested in the single-stage converter, which has high efficiency for improved
PFC in such applications and is simple to construct. PFC boost converters, consisting of a full-bridge diode and a
boost converter, are commonly used structures in single-phase stage applications [1]–[3].
Sliding mode control (SMC) is a non-linear control method used in power converters to control variable-
structure systems. SMC offers numerous advantages, such as durability under load and source voltage variations,
stability, and design flexibility, which could improve power converter performance. Modulation methods used for
SMC are either hysteresis modulation or pulse width modulation, which have some critical defects such as variable
switching frequency, high noise sensitivity, and difficulty in filter design. Hence, artificial intelligence-based
algorithms or fuzzy logic control with SMC were proposed to overcome the demerits of the variable switching
frequency. The control guarantees that the output voltage is regulated, and the fast dynamic response of the input
and output currents is maintained by a genetic algorithm [4]–[8]. Power converters have many control methods,

Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com

1616  ISSN: 2088-8694

such as inductor voltage loss integration, inductor current prediction, and state observation. Insensitive control of
boost converters solves size, weight, and cost challenges. Another technique is the sliding-mode observer, which
feeds the non-linear output estimation error to the observer. Additional methods, such as PI and PID control, can
be applied to a system if it is non-linear and time-varying. However, there are some limitations under the significant
load variations, but SMC can effectively solve such a non-linearity. SMC is less sensitive to parameter changes
and simplifies design procedures [1], [6], [9]–[12]. Due to the variable switching frequency issue, a fixed-frequency
operation mode is needed for passive energy storage components such as inductors and capacitors. The integrated
sliding-mode control system is based on pulse width modulation, but its steady-state error increases with the
decrease in the converter switching frequency. Adaptive, indirect, and integral strategies were proposed to address
this shortage. However, the adaptive hysteresis system needs additional sensors, and the PI control system's stability
is not guaranteed due to the slow dynamic response of the frequency control compared to the voltage and current.
The frequency regulation controller monitors and compares the time of each switching period to a reference
switching period to compensate for the difference in the switching period [1]–[3], [13]–[18].
The implementation of the SMC scheme was directed toward numerical control, a new trend in time-
varying reference applications. Because the dynamic response is slow when controlling the output voltage of the
right-half plane-zero characteristic boost converter, so a non-linear sliding-mode current control (SMCC) is
applied to improve it [19]–[21]. SMC and two-loop cascade control with a fixed-frequency operating mode are
presented here to reduce the adverse impacts of wide variations in load and voltage values while preserving output
voltage stability. The points mentioned above are expected to enhance the dynamic response of the system's
output. Furthermore, the power factor correcting and raising the harmonics issues were overcome by controlling
the current using SMC. As a result, it is known as the SMCC technique with a fixed output voltage value.
In this paper, section 2 introduces the design and analysis of the proposed SMCC, and the PI-two loop
cascade control (TLCC) of the boost topology. Section 3 shows and discusses the simulation results of
MATLAB/Simulink for the two proposed methods for the DC-DC and AC-DC boost converters. Finally, the
conclusions for this paper are given in section 4.

2. RESEARCH METHOD
The proposed SMCC and PI-TLCC for the boost converter are presented in this section. For the SMCC
method, a comprehensive mathematical analysis is introduced. The ideal sliding dynamics, the equilibrium-point
analysis, and the ideal sliding dynamics linearization are presented in detail with related equations in this section.

2.1. The proposed SMCC-PFC boost converter

Figure 1 shows the proposed SMCC Simulink model through reference current (𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) generation in
this work to achieve PFC for the AC-DC boost converter. The values of beta (β) and reference voltage (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 )
are substantial factors in achieving the proposed control system. Figure 2 shows the SMC technique for the
DC-DC boost converter, Figure 2(a) shows the sliding-mode voltage control (SMVC) circuit and Figure 2(b)
shows SMCC circuit for regulating the voltage and the current. The Simulink model for the DC-DC boost
converter is the same as Figure 1 except for the bridge part. The amplified output-voltage error is used in the
proposed controller to generate the instantaneous reference-inductor-current (𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) as (1):

𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝐾[𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜 ] (1)

where 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 , 𝑣𝑜 , 𝛽, and 𝐾 refer to the reference voltage, the instantaneous output voltage, the feedback-network
ratio, and the amplified gain of the voltage error, respectively. A great value of 𝐾 is chosen to enhance the
dynamic response and minimize the steady-state voltage error in the system.
In the proposed controller, the amplified output-voltage error generates the instantaneous reference
inductor current 𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 . The proposed controller's sliding surface is made up of a linear combination of three state
variables, with the switching function given by 𝑢 = 1/2(1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑆)), where 𝑢 is the power switch logic state:

𝑆 = 𝛼1 𝑋1 + 𝛼2 𝑋2 + 𝛼3 𝑋3 (2)

where 𝛼1 , 𝛼2 , and 𝛼3 denote the sliding coefficients. The adopted controlled state variables are the current error 𝑋1 ,
the voltage error 𝑣𝑋2 , and the integral of both current and the voltage errors 𝑋3 , which are expressed as:
𝑋1 = 𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝐼𝑙
𝑋2 = 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜
(3)
𝑋3 = ∫(𝑋1 + 𝑋2 )𝑑𝑡
{ 3 ∫(𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝐼𝑙 )𝑑𝑡 + ∫(𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜 )𝑑𝑡
∴ 𝑋 =

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2023: 1615-1623
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1617

where 𝐼𝑙 denotes the instantaneous inductor current. The dynamical model of the suggested system is as follows
when the behavioral models of the boost converter under CCM are substituted into the time differentiation of (3):
𝑑(𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝐼𝑙 ) 𝛽𝐾 𝑣𝑖𝑛 − ¯𝑢 𝑣𝑜
ẋ1 = =− 𝐼 −
𝑑𝑡 𝐶 𝑐 𝐿
𝑑(𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝛽𝑣𝑜 ) 𝛽
ẋ2 = = − 𝐼𝑐 (4)
𝑑𝑡 𝐶
ẋ3 = (𝑋1 + 𝑋2 ) = (𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝐼𝑙 ) + (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜 )
{ ∴ ẋ3 = (𝐾 + 1)(𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜 ) − 𝐼𝑙

where ¯𝑢 = 1 − 𝑢 is the inverse logic of 𝑢. 𝑣𝑖𝑛 , 𝐼𝑐 , 𝐶, and 𝐿 denote the instantaneous input voltage,
instantaneous capacitor current, and converter’s capacitance and inductance, respectively. The SMCC
equivalent-control signal:
𝐾1 𝐾2 𝑣𝑖𝑛 𝐾3
𝑢𝑒𝑞 = 1 + (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜 ) − 𝐼 − − 𝐼 (5)
𝑣𝑜 𝑣𝑜 𝑐 𝑣𝑜 𝑣𝑜 𝑙

𝛼3
𝐾1 = 𝐿(𝐾 + 1)
𝛼1
𝛽𝐿 𝛼2
𝐾2 = (𝐾 + ) (6)
𝐶 𝛼1
𝛼3
𝐾3 = 𝐿
{ 𝛼1

This process provides the pulse width modulation (PWM) control architecture, and it reproduces the
static and dynamic characteristics of the original SM controller while functioning as a PWM controller. The
control signal 𝑉𝑐 and the ramp signal 𝑉𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑝 from the equations of the control law inherit the following form in
the proposed controller:
𝑉𝑐
{ = 𝐺𝑠 𝐾1 (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜 ) − 𝐺𝑠 𝐾2 𝐼𝑐 − 𝐺𝑠 𝐾3 𝐼𝑙 + 𝐺𝑠 (𝑣𝑜 − 𝑣𝑖𝑛 ) (7)
𝑉𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑝 = 𝐺𝑠 𝑣𝑜

where 0 < 𝐺𝑠 < 1, 𝐺𝑠 = 𝛽, the three SMCC requirements, namely the hitting, existence, and stability
conditions, must be satisfied for SMCC operation in this controller. The existing condition may be determined
by evaluating the local reachability condition lim S→0 S・ (dS/dt) < 0, with the substitutions of (2) and its time
derivative, which gives:
𝛽𝐾 𝑣𝑖𝑛 𝛽
𝛼1 (− 𝐼 − ) − 𝛼2 𝐼𝑐 + 𝛼3 ((𝐾 + 1)(𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜 ) − 𝐼𝑙 ) < 0
𝐶 𝑐 𝐿 𝐶
{ 𝛽𝐾 𝑣𝑖𝑛 𝛽
(8)
𝛼1 (− 𝐼𝑐 − ) − 𝛼2 𝐼𝑐 + 𝛼3 ((𝐾 + 1)(𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜 ) − 𝐼𝑙 ) > 0
𝐶 𝐿 𝐶
The controller must be built with a static sliding surface to ensure steady-state operations (equilibrium
point):

0 < 𝑉𝑖𝑛(𝑚𝑖𝑛) − 𝐾1 (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜(𝑆𝑆) ) + 𝐾2 𝐼𝑐(𝑚𝑖𝑛) + 𝐾3 𝐼𝑙(𝑚𝑎𝑥) 𝑉𝑖𝑛(𝑚𝑎𝑥)

{ (9)
− 𝐾1 (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝛽𝑣𝑜(𝑆𝑆) + 𝐾2 𝐼𝑐(𝑚𝑎𝑥) + 𝐾3 𝐼𝑙(𝑚𝑖𝑛) < 𝑉𝑜(𝑆𝑆)

where 𝑉𝑖𝑛(𝑚𝑎𝑥) , 𝑉𝑖𝑛(𝑚𝑖𝑛) , and 𝑉𝑜(𝑆𝑆) denote the maximum input voltage, minimum input voltage, and expected
steady-state output voltage, respectively. 𝑉𝑜(𝑆𝑆) is the essential dc parameter of the small error from the desired
𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 . 𝐼𝑙(𝑚𝑎𝑥) , 𝐼𝑙(𝑚𝑖𝑛) , 𝐼𝑐(𝑚𝑎𝑥) , and 𝐼𝑐(𝑚𝑖𝑛) are the maximum inductor current, minimum inductor current,
maximum capacitor current, and minimum capacitor current, respectively. The gain parameters selection of
the controller 𝐾1 , 𝐾2 , and 𝐾3 must comply with (9). This selection ensures that the SMCC operation will
continue at least in the tiny region of origin for all operating conditions up to a full load.
For the ideal sliding dynamics, the discontinuous system is transformed into an ideal SM continuous
system by replacing ¯𝑢 with ¯𝑢𝑒𝑞 (the so-called equivalent control approach) in the original boost converter's
description under the CCM operation, representing the ideal sliding dynamics of the SMCC boost converter.

𝑑𝐼𝐿 𝑣𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑜
𝑑𝑡
=
𝐿
−
𝐿
¯𝑢𝑒𝑞
{𝑑𝑣𝑜 𝐼𝐿 𝑣 (10)
𝑑𝑡
=
𝐶
¯𝑢𝑒𝑞 − 𝑟 𝑜𝐶
𝑙

Sliding-mode control for boost converters under voltage and load variations (Mariam K. Shehata)
1618  ISSN: 2088-8694
𝑉
𝐾 𝑜 −𝑣𝑖𝑛+𝐾3 (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝛽𝑣𝑜 )−𝐾3 (𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝐼𝑙 )
𝑑𝐼𝐿 𝑣𝑖𝑛 𝑉𝑜 2 𝑟𝑙
= −
𝑑𝑡 𝐿 𝐿 𝐾2 (𝐼𝑙 −𝑉𝑜)
𝑣
𝐾2 𝑜 −𝑣𝑖𝑛 +𝐾3 (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝛽𝑣𝑜 )−𝐾3 (𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 −𝐼𝑙 )
(11)
𝑑𝑣𝑜 𝐼𝐿 𝑟𝑙 𝑣𝑜
= −
𝑑𝑡 𝐶 𝐾2 (𝐼𝑙 −𝑣𝑜 ) 𝑟𝑙 𝐶
{

Figure 1. Proposed SMCC Simulink model for PFC boost converter

L D L
DC DC D

Q C R Vo Q C R vo

SMVC SMCC
(a) (b)

Figure 2. SMC for the DC-DC boost converter (a) SMVC circuit and (b) SMCC circuit

If the sliding surface has a stable equilibrium point, and accordingly, the ideal sliding dynamics will be
determined. If there are no input or loading disturbances at this equilibrium (stationary state), the system's dynamics
𝑑𝐼 𝑑𝑣
will not change. i.e., 𝐿 = 𝑜 = 0. Then, the two formulas in (11) can be equated to zero to obtain the (12).
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡

𝑉𝑜2
𝐼𝑙 = (12)
𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑙

𝐼𝑙 , 𝑉𝑜 , 𝑉𝑖𝑛 , and 𝑅𝑙 denote the inductor current, output voltage, input voltage, and load at steady-state equilibrium.
The ideal sliding dynamics around the equilibrium point are then linearized, yielding from (11), as follows:
𝑑 ˜𝐼 𝑙
= 𝑎11 ˜𝐼𝑙 + 𝑎12 ˜𝑉𝑜
{𝑑𝑑𝑡
˜𝑉
(13)
𝑜
= 𝑎21 ˜𝐼𝑙 + 𝑎22 ˜𝑉𝑜
𝑑𝑡

𝐾3 𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑙
𝑎11 =
𝐾2 𝐿𝑉𝑜 −𝐿𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑙
𝑉 𝑅 2
𝐾1 𝛽𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑙 −2 𝐾2 𝑉𝑖𝑛 + 𝑖𝑛 𝑙
𝑉𝑜
𝑎12 =
𝐾2 𝐿𝑉𝑜 −𝐿𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑙
2
𝑉 𝑅 (14)
𝐾2 𝑉𝑖𝑛 − 𝑖𝑛 𝑙 −𝐾3 𝑉𝑜
𝑉𝑜
𝑎21 =
𝐾2 𝑉𝑜 𝐶−𝐶𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑙
𝐾2 𝑉𝑜
−𝐾1 𝛽𝑉𝑜 1
𝑅𝑙
{ 𝑎22 = 𝐾2𝑉𝑜 𝐶−𝐶𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑙 − 𝐶 𝑅𝑙

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2023: 1615-1623
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1619

The derivation is performed by adopting static equilibrium conditions: 𝑉𝑖𝑛 = 𝑣𝑖𝑛 , 𝑅𝑙 = 𝑟𝑙 , 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 −
𝛽𝑣𝑜 = 0, and 𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝐼𝑙 = 0, as well the assumptions 𝐼𝑙 ≫ ˜𝐼𝑙 and 𝑉𝑜 ≫ ˜𝑉𝑜 ; the linearized system characteristic
equation will be given by:

𝑆 2 − (𝑎11 + 𝑎22 )𝑆 + 𝑎11 𝑎22 − 𝑎12 + 𝑎21 = 0 (15)

(𝑎11 + 𝑎22 ) < 0, 𝑎11 𝑎22 − 𝑎12 + 𝑎21 > 0 (16)

for the case of (𝑎11 + 𝑎22 ) < 0, the condition for stability is:
𝐾3 𝐶𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑙 −𝐾1 𝐿𝛽𝑉𝑜 +𝐿𝑉𝑖𝑛
<0 (17)
𝐾2 𝑉𝑜 −𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑙

𝐶𝑅𝑙 𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑅𝑙

𝐾3 + < 𝐾1 , 𝐾2 >
𝐿𝛽𝑉𝑜 𝛽𝑉𝑜 𝑉𝑜
{ 𝐶𝑅𝑙 𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑙 (18)
𝐾3 + > 𝐾1 , 𝐾2 <
𝐿𝛽𝑉𝑜 𝛽𝑉𝑜 𝑉𝑜

for the case of 𝑎11 𝑎22 − 𝑎12 + 𝑎21 > 0, the condition for stability is (19).
3 2
2𝐾3 𝑉𝑜3 (𝐾2 − 𝐾1 𝛽𝑅𝑙 ) + 𝐾2 𝑉𝑜2 𝑉𝑖𝑛 (𝐾1 𝛽𝑅𝑙 − 2𝐾2 ) + 𝑉𝑜2 𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑙 (3𝐾2 − 𝐾1 𝛽𝑅𝑙 ) − 𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑙 > 0 (19)

The control gains and design for the proposed SMCC depend on the existing condition of (9) and the stability
conditions of (18) and (19). If met, the system's closed-loop stability is guaranteed.

2.2. The proposed PI-TLCC for the boost converter

The proposed cascade PI controller has current inner and voltage outer loops. The output voltage is
compared to a voltage reference to generate an inductor reference current. The inner loop provides the duty
cycle for the pulse width modulation. Figure 3 depicts the proposed PI-TLCC Simulink model for the DC-DC
boost converter. The control system aims to track the reference signal as a desired external signal supplied to
the outer control loop. The outer loop controller produces the reference signal for the inner loop. Here, the PI-
TLCC is a DC-DC boost converter. The outer-loop controller is of the PI type and is considered to control the
converter output voltage. The inner loop is a PI controller designed to control the inductor current [22], [23].
Values for the controller gains are determined by Ziegler–Nichol’s method to ensure that the PI controller
parameters are tuned [24]. The main equations of reference current and controller output (U) for the PI-TLCC
method are given in (20) and (21), where 𝐾𝑝 and 𝐾𝑖 are the PI control gain parameters.
𝐾
Iref = (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 )(𝐾𝑝 + 𝑖) (20)
𝑆

𝐾
U = (𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝐼𝑙 )(𝐾𝑝 + 𝑖) (21)
𝑆

Figure 3. Proposed PI-TLCC Simulink model for DC-DC boost converter

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The SMC design in [19] was re-simulated to validate the simulation methodology. Both the re-simulation
and published results of Vin, Vo, Iin, and Io signals of control, ramp, and gate pulse were identical. This study
applied SMC and TLCC methods to the boost converter. Tables 1 and 2 show the coefficients of the boost
Sliding-mode control for boost converters under voltage and load variations (Mariam K. Shehata)
1620  ISSN: 2088-8694

converter in the case of DC and AC, respectively. The SMCC steady-state simulation results at 1 s for the DC-
DC boost converter are shown in Figure 4. Figures 4(a)-(d) shows Iin = 3.6 A & Io = 1.52, Vin = 24 V and Vo = 47
V, control and ramp input signals of 9.4 V and 8 V, and control and gate pulse signals of 9.4 V and 10 V. Such
results confirmed excellent performance under the full-load condition of 30 Ω and the rated input voltage of 24
V. When SMCC is applied to the DC-DC boost converter, the importance of both β and 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 values can affect
both the output waveform and the system's dynamic response. The SMCC results of the dynamic response at 2 s
for DC-DC boost converters are shown in Figure 5. Figures 5(a)-(d) shows Vin and Vo at β =1/8, Iin and Io at β =
1/8, Vin and Vo at β =1/6, and Iin and Io at β = 1/6. The dynamic responses of step load variation from 30 Ω to 60
Ω and step voltage variation from 18 V to 24 V are shown in Figures 5(e)-(h). Such results are promising since
the output voltage is regulated at the desired value of 47 V, as is the positive dynamic response of the system.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4. Zoomed-in SMCC steady-state response (a) Iin and Io, (b) Vin and Vo, (c) control and ramp input
signals, and (d) control and gate pulse signals

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 5. SMCC dynamic response (a) Vin and Vo at β =1/8, (b) Iin and Io at β = 1/8, (c) Vin and Vo at
β =1/6 (d) Iin and Io at β = 1/6, (e) Vin and Vo step load variation, (f) Iin and Io step load variation,
(g) Vin and Vo step voltage variation, and (h) Iin and Io step voltage variation

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2023: 1615-1623
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1621

Table 1. Specification and components used in the simulation of a DC-DC boost converter
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Input voltage 𝑉𝑖𝑛 24 V
Reference voltage 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 8, 6 V
Output Voltage 𝑉𝑂 48 V
Load 𝑅 30 Ω
Capacitor 𝐶𝑂 220 μF
Inductor 𝐿 470 μH
Beta β 1/6, 1/8
Switching frequency 𝐹𝑆 150 kHz

Table 2. Specification and components used in the simulation of an AC-DC boost converter
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Input voltage 𝑉𝑖𝑛 40 V(RMS)
Supply frequency 𝐹 50 Hz
Output Voltage 𝑉𝑂 100 V
Load 𝑅 100 Ω
Capacitor 𝐶𝑂 1000 μF
Inductor 𝐿 3 mH
Reference voltage 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 20 V
Switching frequency 𝐹𝑆 20 kHz
Beta β 1/5

Figure 6 shows the SMCC steady-state results for the AC–DC PFC boost converter. Figures 6(a)-(e)
shows Iin = 16 A and Io = 1.04 A, Vin = 56.56 V and Vo = 100 V, control from -13 V to 24 V and ramp signals of
20 V, gate signal of 10 V, and THD of 2.21%. The challenge is to minimize the harmonics and have a sinusoidal
waveform for the input current to improve the system efficiency and reach the unity power factor of the boost
converter, which was addressed by the proposed SMCC-PFC boost converter. The obtained power factor value
was 0.99, and the harmonic value was reduced to 2.21%, using the proposed method compared to literature results
[24], [25], since they achieved a power factor of 0.98 and total harmonic distortions of 2.4% and 2.38%,
respectively, under 100% full load.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Figure 6. SMCC results for the boost converter (a) I in and Iout, (b) Vin and Vout, (c) control and ramp input
signals, (d) gate signal, and (e) total harmonic distortion

Figure 7 depicts the steady-state and dynamic responses of the PI-TLCC for the DC-DC boost converter
under step load and step voltage variations of 200% and 75%, respectively. Figures 7(a)-(b) shows Vin = 24 V
and Vo = 48 V and Iin = 3.5 A and Io = 1.6 A. The results were obtained under load variations of 30 Ω to 60 Ω and
input voltage variations of 18 V to 24 V for the TLCC control method used with the boost converter as in
Figures 7(c)-(f). Finally, the boost converter has a stable dynamic response to load and voltage variations.

Sliding-mode control for boost converters under voltage and load variations (Mariam K. Shehata)
1622  ISSN: 2088-8694

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 7. TLCC steady-state and dynamic (a) Vin and Vout, (b) Iin and Iout, (c) Vin and Vout load variation,
(d) Iin and Iout load variation, (e) Vin and Vout step voltage variation, and (f) Iin and Iout step voltage variation

4. CONCLUSION
The SMCC simulation results for AC-DC and DC-DC converters are presented in this study. A fixed-
frequency fast-response SMCC is proposed for the DC-DC boost converter, which provides a faster reaction
with minor voltage overshoot across a wide range of operating conditions. According to simulation findings,
the proposed SMCC and two-loop cascade control strategies for the boost converter are valid and resilient
against changes in load from 30 Ω to 60 Ω or input voltage from 18 V to 24 V. The proposed approaches have
many advantages: stability, robustness, and good dynamic performance. The SMCC converter has low input
current harmonics to comply with IEC 61000-3-2 harmonic regulations and a high-power factor of 0.99 using
the proposed control for the power factor correction (PFC) boost converter. SMCC can be used for buck and
buck-boost PFC converters in the continuous conduction mode. The proposed converter provides a low total
harmonic distortion of 2.21% at full load.

REFERENCES
[1] C. S. Sachin and S. G. Nayak, “Design and simulation for sliding mode control in DC-DC boost converter,” Proc. 2nd Int. Conf.
Commun. Electron. Syst. ICCES 2017, vol. 2018–Janua, pp. 440–445, 2018, doi: 10.1109/CESYS.2017.8321317.
[2] M. S. Rao, P. V. S. Sobhan, M. V. Sudarsan, and K. P. Ranga, “Boost PFC converter based on intelligent SM controller,” Proc. - 2017 IEEE
Int. Conf. Electr. Instrum. Commun. Eng. ICEICE 2017, vol. 2017–Decem, pp. 1–5, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ICEICE.2017.8191953.
[3] A. Marcos-Pastor, E. Vidal-Idiarte, A. Cid-Pastor, and L. Martinez-Salamero, “Interleaved digital power factor correction based on
the sliding-mode approach,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 4641–4653, 2016, doi: 10.1109/TPEL.2015.2476698.
[4] R. N. Deo, A. Shrivastava, and K. Chatterjee, “Implementation of sliding mode backstepping controller for boost converter in real-
time for LED application,” Expert Syst., 2022, doi: 10.1111/exsy.13095.
[5] C. S. Purohit, M. Geetha, P. Sanjeevikumar, P. K. Maroti, S. Swami, and V. K. Ramachandaramurthy, “Performance analysis of
DC/DC bidirectional converter with sliding mode and pi controller,” Int. J. Power Electron. Drive Syst., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 357–
365, 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v10.i1.pp357-365.
[6] A. Kessal and L. Rahmani, “Ga-optimized parameters of sliding-mode controller based on both output voltage and input current
with an application in the PFC of AC/DC converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 3159–3165, 2014, doi:
10.1109/TPEL.2013.2274200.
[7] L. Ardhenta and T. Nurwati, “Comparison of sliding mode controller application for buck-boost converter based on linear sliding
surface,” Int. J. Power Electron. Drive Syst., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 423–431, 2022, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v13.i1.pp423-431.
[8] M. L. Corradini, G. Ippoliti, and G. Orlando, “Boost converter load estimation by a sliding mode approach,” Int. J. Circuit Theory
Appl., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1806–1816, 2022, doi: 10.1002/cta.3226.
[9] N. Zerroug, M. N. Harmas, S. Benaggoune, Z. Bouchama, and K. Zehar, “DSP-based implementation of fast terminal synergetic
control for a DC–DC Buck converter,” J. Franklin Inst., vol. 355, no. 5, pp. 2329–2343, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2018.01.004.
[10] Y. Zhao, W. Qiao, and D. Ha, “A sliding-mode duty-ratio controller for DC/DC buck converters with constant power loads,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1448–1458, 2014, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2013.2273751.
[11] M. A. F. Al-Qaisi, M. A. Shehab, A. Al-Gizi, and M. Al-Saadi, “High performance DC/DC buck converter using sliding mode
controller,” Int. J. Power Electron. Drive Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1806–1814, 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v10.i4.pp1806-1814.
[12] S. B. Hamed, M. Ben Hamed, and L. Sbita, “Robust Voltage Control of a Buck DC-DC Converter: A Sliding Mode Approach,”
Energies, vol. 15, no. 17, 2022, doi: 10.3390/en15176128.
[13] S. C. Tan, “Development of sliding mode controllers for Dc Dc converter,” Polytechnic University, 2005.
[14] S. Das, M. Salim Qureshi, and P. Swarnkar, “Design of integral sliding mode control for DC-DC converters,” Mater. Today Proc.,
vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 4290–4298, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.694.
[15] A. R. Yasin, M. Ashraf, and A. I. Bhatti, “A novel filter extracted equivalent control based fixed frequency sliding mode approach
for power electronic converters,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 5, 2019, doi: 10.3390/en12050853.
[16] A. Khoudiri, K. Guesmi, and D. Mahi, “Optimized sliding mode control of DC-DC boost converter for photovoltaic system,” Lect.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 14, No. 3, September 2023: 1615-1623
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1623

Notes Electr. Eng., vol. 411, pp. 393–406, 2017, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-48929-2_31.
[17] A. P. Podey and J. O. Chandle, “Stability analysis of DC-DC boost converter using sliding mode controller,” 2020 IEEE PES/IAS
PowerAfrica, PowerAfrica 2020, 2020, doi: 10.1109/PowerAfrica49420.2020.9219954.
[18] J. Wang, J. Rong, and L. Yu, “Dynamic prescribed performance sliding mode control for DC–DC buck converter system with
mismatched time-varying disturbances,” ISA Trans., vol. 129, pp. 546–557, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2022.02.019.
[19] S. C. Tan, Y. M. Lai, C. K. Tse, L. Martínez-Salamero, and C. K. Wu, “A fast-response sliding-mode controller for boost-type
converters with a wide range of operating conditions,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 3276–3286, 2007, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2007.905969.
[20] X. Li, M. Chen, and T. Yoshihara, “Design of sliding-mode-observer-based sensorless control of boost converters for high dynamic
performance,” J. Signal Process., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 253–261, 2015, doi: 10.2299/jsp.19.253.
[21] O. Kaplan and F. Bodur, “Second-order sliding mode controller design of buck converter with constant power load,” Int. J. Control,
2022, doi: 10.1080/00207179.2022.2037718.
[22] N. M. Galeano, J. M. L. Lezama, and J. B. C. Quintero, “A methodology for tunning cascade PI controllers for power electronics
converters,” Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 3997–4003, 2020, doi: 10.37624/ijert/13.11.2020.3997-4003.
[23] S. Azarastemal and M. Hejri, “Cascade control system design and stability analysis for a DC–DC boost converter with proportional
integral and sliding mode controllers and using singular perturbation theory,” Iran. J. Sci. Technol. - Trans. Electr. Eng., vol. 45,
no. 4, pp. 1445–1462, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40998-021-00444-7.
[24] P. R. Mohanty and A. K. Panda, “Fixed-frequency sliding-mode control scheme based on current control manifold for improved
dynamic performance of boost PFC converter,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 576–586, 2017, doi:
10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2585587.
[25] Z. Ortatepe and A. Karaarslan, “DSP-based comparison of PFC control techniques applied on bridgeless converter,” IET Power
Electron., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 317–323, 2020, doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2018.5411.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Mariam K. Shehata received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Power and Electrical
Machines technology from the Faculty of Technology & Education, Suez University, Egypt, in 2011
and 2018, respectively. She is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree with the same faculty in the Power
Electronics area. She was a Teaching Assistant with Suez University, from 2013 to 2019, where she
is an Assistant Lecturer since 2019. Her current research interests include Power Converters and
Control Techniques. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Hossam E. Mostafa Attia received the B. Sc, M. Sc & Ph. D. from faculty of
engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt in 1987, 1994 and 1999, respectively. From
1991 to 1997 worked in Egypt Air Company as second engineer. From 1997 to 2001, worked as
a teacher assistant at College of Technological Studies - The Public Authority of Applied
Education and Training - Kuwait Since 2001, I have been a faculty member with the Electrical
Department at the Faculty of Industrial Education, Suez University, Suez, Egypt. Currently,
working as a professor and Dean of faculty of Technology and Education since August 2019,
Suez Univ. Egypt. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Nagwa F. Ibrahim received the B.S. from Faculty of Industrial Education. Suez
Canal University, Suez, Egypt, in 2008, MSC. From Faculty of Industrial Education, Suez
University, Suez, Egypt in 2015 and Ph.D. degree from faculty of industrial education, Suez
University, Suez, Egypt in 2019. She is currently an assistant Professor with the Department of
Electrical power and machine, Faculty of Technology and Education, Suez University. Her
research interests are in the area of renewable energy sources, power system protection, power
electronics, high voltage direct current (HVDC), control and power quality issues, control of
power electronic converters and electrical machine drives. She can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Basem E. Elnaghi received the B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical power
engineering in 2002 and 2009, and 2015 respectively, from Suez Canal University, Port Said,
Egypt. Since 2015, he has been Associate professor with the electrical engineering Department,
faculty of engineering, Suez Canal University. He joined the Department of faculty of
engineering, Suez Canal University. His main interests include ac and dc drives, direct torque
and field-oriented control techniques, and DSP control, control of electrical machines and wind
energy conversion system, and power electronics applications. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Sliding-mode control for boost converters under voltage and load variations (Mariam K. Shehata)