Figure 1.
Charger application
Figure 2.
Proposed charger architecture
Figure 3.
Charging Algorithm
Figure 4.
(a) Charging control block, (b) PWM generator
Figure 5.
Fuzzy membership function (a) input error and Δerror, (b) input SoC, (c) Output
Table 1.
The fuzzy rule for low SoC level
| SoC: Low | error | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NB | N | Z | P | PB | ||
| Δ error | NB | Z | Z | Z | Z | Z |
| N | Z | N | N | Z | P | |
| Z | Z | Z | Z | P | PB | |
| P | Z | Z | P | PB | PB | |
| PB | Z | P | PB | PB | PB | |
Table 2.
The fuzzy rule for medium SoC level
| SoC: Medium | error | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NB | N | Z | P | PB | ||
| Δ error | NB | PB | PB | PB | PB | PB |
| N | PB | PB | PB | PB | PB | |
| Z | PB | PB | PB | PB | PB | |
| P | PB | PB | PB | PB | PB | |
| PB | PB | PB | PB | PB | PB | |
Table 3.
The fuzzy rule for high SoC level
| SoC: High | error | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NB | N | Z | P | PB | ||
| Δ error | NB | NB | NB | NB | NB | NB |
| N | NB | NB | NB | NB | N | |
| Z | NB | NB | NB | NB | N | |
| P | NB | NB | NB | N | N | |
| PB | NB | NB | N | N | N | |
Table 4.
The charger simulation parameters
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| RMS Input Voltage | 220-230V 50Hz (AC) |
| AC Transformator | 1:2 |
| Rectifier | 2 kW |
| Switching device | MOSFET N-type Rd = 0.01 Ω Rs = 1e5 Ω |
| Inductor Ls | 1e-3H |
| Capacitor output CO | 200e-6F |
| Voltage output Vo | 48-84V |
| Output current io | 0-20A |
Figure 6.
The comparison of charging voltage characteristics
Figure 7.
Charging time performance
Table 5.
The charging current characteristics of the proposed algorithm
| SoC (%) | Peak Current (A) | Average Charging Current (A) | C-Rate | Charging Voltage (V) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 13 | 10 | 0.5 | 84 |
| 20 | 24 | 20 | 1 | 84 |
| 40 | 23 | 20 | 1 | 84 |
| 60 | 22 | 20 | 1 | 84 |
| 80 | 15 | 10 | 0.5 | 84 |
| 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 84 |
Figure 8.
Hardware experimental setup
Table 6.
The charger hardware implementation parameters
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| RMS Input Voltage | 220-230V 50Hz (AC) |
| Voltage Input | 30 V |
| Current Input | 0.4 A |
| Power Input | 12 W |
| Voltage Output | 21 V |
| Current Output | 0.564 A |
| Output Capacitor | 100 uF |
| Inductor | 60 uH |
| Switching Device | MOSFET |
| Switching Frequency | 30 kHz |
| Battery Array | 5 series 1 parallel |
| Power Output | 11.85 W |
| Charger Efficiency | 98.8 % |
Figure 9.
Hardware implementation of the proposed charging topology
Figure 10.
Three phases interleaved PWM signal result 3OKhz
Figure 11.
Charger input voltage
Figure 12.
Charger output voltage
Table 7.
Comparison between the proposed method and previous methods
| Ref. | Year | Converter Type | Algorithm | Efficiency (%) | Charging Time 0-100% SoC (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [27] | 2012 | Boost | Neural Network | 97.8 | 85 |
| [28] | 2018 | Flyback | PSO | 94.2 | 100 |
| [29] | 2019 | Quasi-Resonant | Hysteresis Control | 97.5 | 70 |
| [15] | 2020 | Cuk | DCM | - | 120 |
| [30] | 2020 | Buck-Boost | FLC | 95.5 | 90 |
| [31] | 2021 | SEPIC | PID | 92.3 | 110 |
| [32] | 2022 | Interleaved Boost | FLC | 98.5 | 65 |
| [17] | 2023 | Buck | ANFIS | - | 175 |
| [33] | 2023 | Zeta | Sliding Mode Control | 98.1 | 80 |
| [34] | 2024 | LLC | GA | 96.7 | 95 |
| [35] | 2024 | Dual Active Bridge | MPC | 97.9 | 75 |
| Proposed | 2025 | 3-Phase IBC | PI-FLC | 98.8 | 57.75 |