2
\$\begingroup\$

I would like to design a multi-output flyback converter operating in DCM. The problem is that unlike in CCM, in DCM the output voltage also depends on the output current. Therefore, if the feedback is taken only from one output—the master output—then the voltage on the other outputs will not remain constant, because it will depend both on their own load current and on the load current of the master output.

Is there any method to stabilize all output voltages in DCM mode? I would prefer to avoid post-regulation if possible.

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

5
\$\begingroup\$

The cross-regulation mechanism in a multi-output flyback converter is extraordinary difficult to model and predict. The transformer multiple leakage inductances play a role in the way the primary current splits between the windings when the main switch opens. The clamp level on the drain also plays a role as it sets the speed at which the primary leakage inductance gets reset.

You will find a thorough treatment of the subject in Modeling of Cross-Regulation in Multiple-Output Flyback Converters, published during APEC 1999 by the CoPEC professors, B. Erickson and D. Maksimovic (accent on the c). Another good source is the seminar held by these gentlemen during the conference, same title. They describe the cantilever model, which includes all the inductances found in a multi-output transformer:

enter image description here

Needless to point out that extracting these leakage inductances is an extremely tedious task. But once done, simulations really match with what could be measured on the prototype in the end. Without these parasitic inductances properly modeled, it is illusory to try to predict cross-regulation via simulation.

Nevertheless, I have used my auto-toggling current-mode model to build an averaged two-output flyback converter featuring weighted regulated outputs. It means that there are now two resistances sensing the 5 V and 12 V outputs, and a weight is assigned, depending on the wanted precision. Here, I have assigned 70% to the 5 V and 30% to the 12 V. Diodes drops are important there for the bias point. Leakage terms are not included and have, at a first-order level, no impact on the small-signal response:

enter image description here

Once compensated, the crossover frequency is 2 kHz, with a good phase margin:

enter image description here

I can now use this compensator to model a cycle-by-cycle circuit and look at the regulated outputs, especially when one of them is subjected to a load step:

enter image description here

In this picture, you can clearly see the two resistances separately sensing the 5- and 12-V rails, but ending up at the REF pin of the TL431. I also did add leakage inductances in the secondary side, but more would be required to obtain the complete picture. If I now step the 5-V output, regulation is acceptable but the 12-V output rises a bit during this event:

enter image description here

If you compare the turns ratio for the 12-V output with the value selected in the averaged model, I have tweaked it down. And it is exactly how it will go with the prototype: you check the voltages and various drops then decide to adjust the turns ratios, or even rebuild a new transformer with a different windings layout. Yes, this is quite a long process in the end, especially if you want well-regulated outputs. That is why many folks prefer to add a downstream dc-dc or linear regulator in the end ^_^

Another option I remember exploring years ago, was the single-input dual-output (SIDO) converter. See here for instance. Two output switches kind of multiplex the primary current and actively distribute it to the output capacitors. Regulation is improved but efficiency can suffer and cost also. Power Integrations recently released an integrated version of this old principle (see their Innomux).

These new LTspice files will be uploaded in my ZIP file which contains a myriad of free ready-made switching templates.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you very much for the detailed answer! :) From this it’s clear that implementing this is not so simple. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 6 hours ago
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ With pleasure : ) Well, transformer design is truly the key for performance there and iterations are usually the painful part here. I have seen multi-output flybacks with 4 windings, one of them going down to 1.8 V (set-top box application) but the designer really excelled in designing and crafting transformers. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 5 hours ago
  • \$\begingroup\$ What was the DCM Vs CCM conclusion @VerbalKint \$\endgroup\$ Commented 58 mins ago
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Andyaka If you go through the paper and seminar I linked in the answer, DCM is less suited for good cross-regulation performance and CCM is the preferred mode. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 29 mins ago
2
\$\begingroup\$

If one secondary output is voltage controlled by using local feedback then, by laws of induction (Faraday), the other secondary windings will remain regulated by the ratio of their turns ratio to the regulated winding.

This happens whether in DCM or CCM. Transformer rules still apply.

However, under load, non-directly controlled secondary windings will suffer from worsening "regulation" when under load. For instance, if more current is taken on the main secondary, to compensate any voltage droop, the duty cycle will slightly increase and, this will induce slightly higher voltage on the other secondaries.

And, it's a similar story if load currents are reduced.

Is there any method to stabilize all output voltages in DCM mode?

I believe you are over-thinking the problem and convincing yourself that DCM is somehow a problematic special case.


The relationship of output voltage to input voltage from both modes in a flyback converter are shown below just for discussion reasons: -

enter image description here

This is a rearrangement of the DCM formula posted by the OP in comments: -

$$V_{OUT} = \dfrac{V_{IN}^2 D^2}{2\cdot I_{OUT}\cdot L_{MAG}\cdot F_{SW}}$$

I'm just putting stuff in here to double check things.

\$\endgroup\$
10
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks Andy, the situation is much, much worse in DCM compared to CCM. In DCM, the output voltage depends on the output current, and it has a quadratic dependence on the duty cycle and the input voltage. It also depends on the frequency and directly on Lmag, but those are constants. Strangely, the output voltage does not depend on the turns ratio in DCM mode. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 10 hours ago
  • \$\begingroup\$ @slimcolt I don't disagree with what you say in that comment but, once you have one secondary winding controlled then transformer action ensures it is controlled on the other secondary windings. Maybe you've read an article that you can link or, maybe you should test this in a simulator? \$\endgroup\$ Commented 10 hours ago
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @slimcolt, I wish you a fast recovery, like a good diode! : ) \$\endgroup\$ Commented 10 hours ago
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @VerbalKint maybe you can interject (as fast as a good diode) on this trial assertion: multi output flyback converters must use CCM to ensure reasonable regulation on all outputs <-- I'm beginning to doubt my own thoughts on this!! \$\endgroup\$ Commented 10 hours ago
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Andyaka, it's lunch time here : ) I have built a multi-output averaged model, let me look at the cycle-by-cycle model and I will post an answer. You can have one winding in CCM while the others are in DCM for instance. My experience shows a better cross-reg in CCM than DCM. \$\endgroup\$ Commented 9 hours ago

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.