Transfer Function Modeling for the Buck
converter
Sanda Lefteriu
Ecole des Mines de Douai
Unité de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique
941, rue Charles Bourseul, 59500 Douai, France
Email: sanda.lefteriu@mines-douai.fr, cecile.labarre@mines-douai.fr
Abstract—Static converters are used with increasingly
high switching frequencies. Consequently, they impose
more severe electromagnetic interference (EMI) constraints
in their environment. To study and reduce the conducted
emissions, it is crucial to understand the converters’ be-
havior from low up to high frequencies. Designers typically
use the average small-signal model to derive the transfer
function, which is only valid until half of the switching
frequency. This paper investigates two other techniques
to model the transfer function, namely the Generalized
Transfer Function (GTF) [1], [2] and the augmented
Modified Nodal Analysis (MNA) technique extended to
Periodic Switched Linear (PSL) systems [3]. Simulation
results show that these two techniques yield the same model
as the average model until half of the switching frequency.
However, they are able to predict the resonances present
at multiples of the switching frequency, which the average
model cannot account for. Lastly, we performed the experi-
mental validation. For low frequencies, measurements were
taken with an oscilloscope, while for high frequencies, we
used a spectrum analyzer.
I. I NTRODUCTION
DC-DC switching power converters are commonly
integrated into motherboards, aircrafts, satellite commu-
nication equipment and DC motors, to name only a
few possible applications. They consist of linear time-
invariant components (resistors, capacitors, inductors)
together with switches (transistors and diodes), whose
operation is controlled to yield the desired voltage
conversion. As switches are nonlinear and time-varying
components, they render frequency domain analysis via
the Bode plot impossible for this kind of systems.
Average models describe the system’s dynamics based
on average values of current and voltage variables, thus
neglecting ripple effects due to switching. The state-of-
the-art state-space averaging (SSA) technique, initially
proposed in [4], employs the weighted combination of
state equations of the different switching phases in pulse-
width modulated (PWM) switching power converters.
978-1-5090-0349-5/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Cécile Labarre
Average modeling is effective in the low-frequency band,
but it is valid only until half of the switching frequency.
In continuous current mode (CCM), the Buck con-
verter has two linear working modes, hence it can be
modeled by means of the GTF [1], [2], which combines
the continuous behavior (due to the storage elements)
and the discrete behavior (due to the switches). The
resulting function produces a Bode plot which is valid
past half the switching frequency.
DC-DC power converters can be regarded as periodic
switched linear (PSL) circuits. Thus, they can be charac-
terized by the time-varying transfer function, which takes
into account the time-varying behavior, or alternatively,
by the bi-frequency transfer function [5]. For circuits
of this kind, their steady-state response can be found
as the solution of an augmented MNA equation in the
frequency domain [3].
This paper compares three transfer function modeling
techniques for computing the magnitude of the frequency
response for a Buck converter: the average model, the
generalized transfer function and the augmented MNA.
As a first contribution of our paper, the GTF was re-
derived using the ideas in [1], [2] for the special case of a
Buck converter. As a second contribution, the augmented
MNA [3] technique was adapted to our setting. Our paper
extends this technique to cope with transfer function
modeling in the context of a Buck DC-DC converter.
This paper is structured as follows. In Sect. II, the
Buck converter is described in terms of the average
model. In Sect. III, the modeling technique using the
generalized transfer function is re-derived, while the
extension of the technique proposed in [3] is presented
in Sect. IV. Sect. V presents simulation results and,
finally, the conclusion and directions for future research
are given in Sect. VI.
 II. AVERAGE MODEL OF THE B UCK CONVERTER The output observation is y(t) = Vo (t) = VC (t), hence
the output equation y(t) = Cx̃(t) + Du(t) yields C =
The Buck converter is a hybrid dynamical system 
1 0 and D = 0. The line-to-output transfer function
with the continuous behavior dictated by the linear time-
is defined as H(s) = VVin o (s)
(s) , where s is the Laplace
invariant elements (resistor, capacitor, inductor) and the
variable, and its expression based on the average model
discrete behavior given by two switches. Fig. 1 shows the
is given by
topology of a Buck converter which supplies a passive
load resistor with voltage Vo . D
Havg (s) = L
. (4)
1 + s R + s2 LC
III. G ENERALIZED T RANSFER F UNCTION (GTF)
To derive the GTF, we follow the derivation in [1],
[2]. The solution to (1) for the state x(t) attained from
initial state x0 at time t0 using the input u(t) is given
by [6]:
Z t
Figure 1. Topology of the Buck converter x(t) = eA(t−t0 ) x0 + eA(t−τ ) Bi u(τ )dτ, t ≥ t0 . (5)
t0

The switch is controlled by a binary input signal S: Writing (5) for t ∈ [kT, kT + DT ) (phase 1), we obtain
Z t
when S = 1, the switch is closed (conducting), and
for S = 0, the switch is non-conducting (open). We x(t) = eA(t−kT ) x(kT ) + eA(t−τ ) B1 u(τ )dτ. (6)
kT
consider the converter to be operating in CCM, hence At the end of phase 1, the state is
there are two linear working modes. In the first mode,
the switch is closed (S = 1, S = 0) in the time interval x(kT + DT ) = eADT x(kT ) + (7)
Z kT +DT
t ∈ [kT, (k + D)T ], where D is the duty cycle, T is
the switching period and k = ..., −1, 0, 1, .... The second eA(kT +DT −τ ) B1 u(τ )dτ.
kT
mode is defined by the switch being open (S = 0, S = 1) Writing (5) for t ∈ [kT + DT, (k + 1)T ) (phase 2), we
for t ∈ [(k + D)T, (k + 1)T ]. Fig. 2 shows the different have
switching phases. x(t) = eA(t−kT −DT ) x(kT + DT ). (8)
The rest of the procedure follows [1], [2]. We replace
(7) into (8) and evaluate at the end of the period, for
t = (k + 1)T :
Z kT+DT
AT
x((k+1)T )=e x(kT )+e A(k+1)T
e−Aτ B1 u(τ )dτ.
Figure 2. Switching diagram kT
The Buck converter is a DC-DC converter, hence it op-
The circuit can be modeled by differential equations
erates for DC input signals. However, using small signal
involving the capacitor’s voltage VC and the inductor
analysis, we can use an input given by the superposition
current IL . Eq. (1) describes the dynamics of the Buck
of a DC together with a small-amplitude AC component:
converter in each working mode via the state-space
u(t) = u0 +ũejΩt , with u0 >> ũ and Ω, the perturbation
representation (instantaneous model):
frequency of choice. The output at steady-state will also
contain a DC component and an AC component of the
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bi u(t), i = 1, 2, where (1) same frequency Ω, together with other frequencies, as we
   −1 1     
VC (t) 0 0 shall see in Sect. IV. Using the analogy with linear-time
x(t) = , A = RC
−1
C ,B =
1 1 , B2 = ,
IL (t) L 0 L 0 invariant systems, only the component with frequency Ω
is of interest, hence the generalized transfer function for
with u(t) = Vin (t), the input signal. Using the average
the line-to-output response is given by
values of the voltage VC and current IL , we write

−1 AT DT−Aτ
Z
˙
x̃(t) = Ax̃(t) + Bu(t), where (2) HGT F (jΩ) = C ejΩT I−eAT e e B1 ejΩτ dτ,
0
(9)
 
0
A is the same as in (1) and B = D . (3) where I is the identity matrix.
L

2
 IV. AUGMENTED MNA FOR PSL CIRCUITS The LTI relationship can be recovered for n = 0, namely
This section shows how the approach proposed in [3] Y (ω) = Hn (ω)U (ω).
for steady-state computation of periodic switched linear
circuits via an augmented time-invariant MNA equation
in the frequency-domain can be adapted for the small-
signal transfer function computation of Buck converters.
Following [5], the concepts of impulse response and
transfer function can be extended to time-varying sys-
tems as follows. The output can be regarded as
Z ∞
y(t) = h(t, τ )u(τ )dτ, Figure 3. Frequency domain representation of the Buck converter [3]
−∞

where h(t, τ ) = R[δ(t − τ )] is the generalized impulse Following [3], the frequency domain representation of
response, with R, the operator describing the system a Buck converter is obtained by substituting the switches
behavior, and δ(t), the Dirac delta function. The variable S and S in Fig. 1 with periodic switching elements Y1
t is the observation time, while τ is the excitation time. and Y2 and by replacing the voltage source by its Norton
The bi-frequency transfer function can be computed as equivalent, yielding the augmented MNA equation
Z ∞Z ∞     
Y1 + Y2 0 I V1 Y1 Vin
H(ω, Ω) = h(t, τ )e−j(ωt−Ωτ ) dtdτ. (10)
−∞ −∞
 0 jωω C + GI −I V2= 0, (16)
Thus, the output in the frequency domain is I −I −jω ωL IL 0
Z ∞
1 where G = R1 and each block is of dimension 2N + 1.
Y (ω) = H(ω, Ω)U (Ω)dΩ, (11) The unknown IL contains the coefficients of the trun-
2π −∞
cated frequency domain representation with 2N +1 terms
where Ω and ω are the input and output frequencies.
Eq. (11) shows that a sinusoidal input with frequency N
X
Ω produces an output with a rich spectra, as opposed IL (ω) = In δ(ω − nωs − ω0 ), (17)
to LTI systems, for which the output contains solely the n=−N

frequency Ω. The time-varying transfer function with ω0 , the excitation frequency. Similar representations
Z ∞ are used for V1 and V2 , the voltage unknowns at nodes
H(t, Ω) = h(t, τ )e−jΩ(t−τ ) dτ, (12) 1 and 2 in Fig. 3. Y1 and Y2 are matrices of the form
−∞
 
is related to (10) by Yi,0 Yi,−1 . . . Yi,−2N
Z ∞  Yi,1 Yi,0 . . . Yi,−2N +1 
H(t, Ω)ej(Ω−ω)t dt. Yi =  ..  , i = 1, 2
 
H(ω, Ω) = (13) .. .. . .
−∞
 . . . . 
For periodically switched linear circuits, H(t, Ω) is a Yi,2N Yi,2N −1 . . . Yi,0
(18)
periodic function of t which can be written as a Fourier
where Y1,n are the Fourier coefficients of the window
series with respect to the switching frequency ωs = 2π
T : function with amplitude 1 when the switch S is on:
n=∞
Z DT
e−jnωs DT−1
X
H(t, Ω) = Hn (Ω)ejnωs t , (14) Y1,n =fs e−jnωs t dt= , n=−2N, . . . , 2N,
n=−∞ 0 −j2πn
with the frequency-dependent Fourier coefficients for Y1 , and Y2,n = Y1n e−jωs nDT , m = −2N, . . . , 2N ,
Hn (Ω) called aliasing transfer functions: for Y2 , namely for S, due to the delay DT . Finally, the
1 T matrix ω in (16) is given by
Z
Hn (Ω) = H(t, Ω)e−jnωs t dt.
T 0 ω = diag

ω0 − N ωs . . . ω0 + N ωs


.
The output in the frequency domain is obtained by
substituting (13) and (14) into (11): Small-signal analysis assumes an input obtained from
n=∞
the superposition of a DC and a small-amplitude AC
Y (ω) =
X
Hn (ω − nωs )U (ω − nωs ). (15) component u(t) = u0 + ũejΩt , with u0 >> ũ and Ω,
n=−∞
the perturbation frequency of choice. This corresponds

3
to a sum of 2 Dirac functions in the frequency domain:
U (ω) = u0 δ(ω) + ũδ(ω − Ω). The linear system in
(16) should be solved for each value of the excitation
frequency ω0 = 0 and ω0 = Ω, namely for input vectors
   
0 0
UDC =  u0  , UAC =  ũ 
0 0
where the column vector 0 is of size N . The voltage
across the capacitor, given by the voltage at node 2 in
Fig. 3, represents the variable V2 in (16). We have V2 =
V2,DC + V2,AC , where
N
X
V2,DC (ω) = Vn,DC δ(ω − nωs ), (19)
n=−N
N
X
V2,AC (ω) = Vn,AC δ(ω − nωs − Ω), (20)
n=−N
with the coefficients Vn,DC and Vn,AC found by solving
(16) for ω0 = 0 and ω0 = Ω. The transfer function at
perturbation frequency Ω is
(
V0,AC
ũ , if Ω 6= nωs
HM N A (jΩ) = Vn,DC +Vn,AC . (21)
ũ , if Ω = nωs
This expression clearly shows that if the perturbation
frequency Ω is an integer multiple of the switching
frequency ωs , there are components due to the DC input
which also contribute to the response.
V. R ESULTS
Simulation results comparing the three modeling tech-
niques detailed in the previous sections, namely the
average model, the Generalized Transfer Function and
the extended MNA approach for periodically switched
linear circuits are shown in Fig. 4. The plot also shows
the magnitude of the Bode plot measured with an Agilent
spectrum analyzer operating between 9kHz and 3GHz.
For low frequencies, measurements were performed with
an oscilloscope. Details on the experimental setup will
be given in a subsequent paper. The device under test is a
Buck converter with parameters: L = 1mH, C = 500µF,
R = 12Ω, fs = 20kHz= T1 and the duty cycle D = 12 .
As expected, all three modeling approaches yield the
same results for perturbation frequencies inferior to half
the switching frequency (in our example, f2s = 10kHz).
Moreover, the GTF and the MNA approaches predict the
peaks in the frequency response at odd multiples of the
switching frequency, which the average model does not.
As the duty cycle is precisely 12 , there are no peaks at
even multiples of the switching frequency, as the Fourier
coefficients Yi,n of the window function are zero for n
even. The amplitude of the peaks differs between the
GTF, the MNA and the measurements: the experimental
data are between the two theoretical models. In between
the peaks, the MNA predicts a response identical to the
average model, the GTF predicts higher amplitudes than
the MNA, while the measurements have even a higher
amplitude than predicted by the GTF.
Figure 4. Simulation results and experimental validation
VI. C ONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The line-to-output transfer function was simulated
using the average model, as well as the GTF and the
MNA for PSL circuits. This comparison of the various
modeling techniques for obtaining the transfer function
of a Buck converter and the experimental validation
is only a preliminary step. Foremost, the phase of the
transfer function should also be validated by using a net-
work analyzer. Moreover, the control-to-output transfer
function, critical for control purposes, is to be modeled,
simulated and validated experimentally. Lastly, our ul-
timate goal is to use the measurements of the transfer
function to derive a model for the converter, valid from
low up to high frequency.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Biolek, “Modeling of periodically switched networks by mixed
s-z description,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I:
Fundamental Theory and Applications, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 750–
758, Aug 1997.
[2] D. Biolek, V. Biolkova, and J. Dobes, “Modeling of switched
DC-DC converters by mixed s-z description,” in Proceedings of
the IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, May
2006, pp. 831–834.
[3] R. Trinchero, “EMI analysis and modeling of switching circuits,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, 2015.
[4] R. Middlebrook and S. Cuk, “A general unified approach to
modelling switching-converter power stages,” in IEEE Power
Electronics Specialists Conference, June 1976, pp. 18–34.
[5] L. A. Zadeh, “Frequency analysis of variable networks,” Proceed-
ings of the IRE, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 291–299, March 1950.
[6] A. C. Antoulas, Approximation of Large-Scale Dynamical Systems.
Philadelphia: SIAM, 2005.