LLC Resonant Converter Designer: Gain, ZVS and Stress
Size an LLC tank, compare FHA with exact PO/NP gain, and check ZVS charge margin and component stress for half-bridge or full-bridge operation.
This LLC resonant converter calculator helps engineers and students choose a transformer ratio and resonant tank for a specified input range, output voltage and power. It supports half-bridge and full-bridge primary stages with either bridge or center-tapped output rectification. The default example converts a 320–420 V DC bus to 48 V at 300 W.
Start with the requirements and choose Size from frequency, Q and Lm/Lr. The tool sets the turns ratio for unity gain at nominal input, calculates the reflected AC load, and derives Lr, Cr and Lm from the selected resonant frequency and quality factor. Resonant unity gain requires P mode above its load boundary; lighter-load OPO operation can raise gain above one. Choose a manual ratio when you have actual winding counts. Switch to Check existing component values to evaluate available parts. Enter the equivalent circuit's shunt magnetizing inductance, rather than blindly copying an integrated transformer's open-circuit primary inductance.
The LLC gain curve calculator plots FHA gain at three load levels alongside an analytical time-domain solution at your selected load. The exact solution covers the PO and NP conduction sequences, checks periodicity and rectifier-current direction, and rejects inconsistent solutions. PO includes a free-resonance interval after the rectifier current reaches zero. NP includes reverse rectification immediately after a primary bridge transition. Other sequences, particularly some light-load conditions, appear as gaps. A gap does not establish that a real converter cannot operate. The displayed peak gain is an FHA estimate. Fang's exact peak occurs in PN/PON modes, which this solver does not cover.
Select an input voltage for the waveform and component-stress calculation. Automatic operation finds a frequency that produces the target output on a supported branch. Manual frequency operation instead reports the resulting output into the specified resistive load. The FHA difference compares gains at the same switching frequency; it is a model comparison, not an assumed percentage error against measurements. Press play on the switching-cycle phase input to follow the resonant and magnetizing currents over one period.
The input-range table solves the minimum, nominal and maximum bus-voltage points at the selected load. It reports regulated frequency, tank current, capacitor voltage and the estimated dead-time charge margin. These three samples are not an exhaustive worst-case search over voltage, load or tolerances.
ZVS screening uses signed commutation current and the charge needed to move each bridge midpoint. Supply time-related effective Coss and include additional node capacitance. A margin above one passes a constant-current charge screen; it does not guarantee ZVS in hardware. Check nonlinear device capacitance, current evolution during dead time and the gate-driver timing window in a detailed simulation and on the bench.
This LLC design tool assumes ideal components, a stiff output capacitor and symmetric 50% switching. It does not select a core, predict losses or efficiency, model startup or burst operation, or include winding capacitance, diode recovery and leakage-induced ringing. Component ratings need allowance for those effects and for transient overloads.
How it is calculated
The sizing flow follows the reflected-load and tank-impedance method in onsemi AN-4151, attached file pages 4–5 and 11. Define (one secondary half for center tap), for half bridge and for full bridge. The bridge AC square-wave amplitude is and tank gain is . At rated load, , , , , and . At load fraction , the fixed resistive load is and .
The FHA curve is
The FHA peak is numerically maximized over . The inductive boundary separately solves . Neither the FHA peak nor the boundary is a hardware ZVS guarantee. Fang et al. (IEEE TPEL, 2012 journal version, DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168545), Sec. V, locate peak gain only in PN and PON modes. This solver covers PO and NP, so the displayed peak remains the first-harmonic estimate, not an exact operating-mode peak.
The time-domain equations are derived here from Kirchhoff's laws, not fitted to FHA or measured gain. Normalize , , , and . Within a positive bridge half-cycle, an active rectifier polarity gives , , . When rectifiers are off, , and . Each segment has an analytical sinusoidal solution.
PO uses a positive rectifier interval followed by an off interval. NP uses negative then positive rectification. A bracketed scalar root and linear system enforce half-cycle antisymmetry, transition , and charge balance . Diode-current signs and off-state voltage limits are checked at both endpoints and every analytical interior extremum. The near-resonance linear systems enforce charge balance together with magnetizing-current periodicity (PO) or current continuity (NP), avoiding singular gain-only equations. Sign-bracketed root refinement stops on the physical transition/periodicity residual; vanishing intervals are allowed. Unsupported sequences are rejected. Frequency regulation selects the highest-frequency supported crossing in , then refines the gain residual to convergence. The displayed error is at equal frequency.
The resonance and zero-load diagnostics use Fang's 2012 journal version, Eqs. (17), (18) and (22). Their inductance parameter is , and their normalized power is . Eq. (17) gives in P mode. Eq. (18) sets the P/OPO resonance boundary at , equivalent to and load fraction . Above that load, resonance has unity gain; equality is the limiting P case. Below it, OPO can have resonant gain greater than one and is outside this solver. Eq. (22) gives the zero-load lower bound
This is a separate analytical voltage-hold bound, not a solved zero-load waveform or a unique output prediction for an initially charged capacitor.
Stress metrics use 401 samples per period; plotted waveforms and Cr RMS voltage use 301 samples. Power conservation is checked using exact input work from the half-cycle capacitor-voltage change against independently sampled rectifier output power. Cr, Lr and the physical transformer-primary winding carry , including magnetizing current (onsemi AN-4151, attached page 4). The ideal transformer's reflected load-current component is ; secondary current is . Each symmetrical rectifier and each primary switch has RMS current equal to the corresponding whole-cycle waveform RMS divided by . Cr includes its bias for half bridge and zero bias for full bridge. Ideal diode reverse voltage is for a bridge or for center tap.
Following the charge-based reasoning in TI SLUA923, use per midpoint and , where must be positive. The full bridge applies this test to each simultaneously moving midpoint; the required charge per midpoint is unchanged. The separate triangular estimate is illustrative and is not substituted for solved commutation current.
Assumptions
- Ideal linear Lr, Cr, shunt Lm, transformer and rectifier; zero winding resistance, core loss and diode drop.
- Stiff DC input and output capacitor. The target voltage and power define a resistive load; manual frequency operation changes actual output power with voltage squared.
- Symmetrical 50% bridge switching. Dead time and primary output capacitance affect only the separate ZVS charge screen; their influence on tank gain and stress waveforms is omitted.
- Effective Coss is a time-related capacitance at the applicable bus voltage, preferably from Qoss/Vin. Additional capacitance is per bridge midpoint.
- Fractional calculated turns ratios are design targets. Use real winding counts and recheck the tank in component-value mode.
- The schematic and animated current plot are original drawings. The equations for the exact segment solver are derived here and cross-checked against Fang's stage normalization and power balance. Fang's analytical limits provide separate reference checks alongside the vendor worked examples.
Where it applies
Use , rated-load and for the displayed exact sweep. The solver is exact within the stated ideal PO and NP sequences, apart from numerical root tolerances and waveform sampling. It is not a universal solver for every LLC operating mode: OPO, NOP, PN, PON and other sequences may be unsupported, and a gap is not a physical infeasibility conclusion.
An input-range result covers only minimum, nominal and maximum voltage at the currently selected load. It does not certify all intermediate voltages, all loads or component tolerances. Inspect other load fractions and recheck device capacitance versus bus voltage. Minimum gain at very light load may require burst control, which is omitted.
A positive charge margin is a screening result, not a ZVS guarantee. The current is held constant during the estimated transition; nonlinear capacitance, rectifier commutation, dead-time current reversal, driver delays and excessive dead time can invalidate it. Keep dead time small relative to the switching period and verify actual waveforms.
Component stresses are steady-state ideal values at the selected point or the three labelled line points, not voltage/current ratings. Add transient, overload, ringing, temperature and tolerance allowances. The tool does not calculate efficiency, thermal limits, core flux or isolation. FHA-versus-model error is not measurement accuracy, and no universal 10–15% correction is applied.
Resonant gain is exactly one in P mode only at or above Fang's Eq. (18) load boundary. FHA remains unity at resonance at every load and therefore misses the lighter-load OPO gain increase. The Eq. (22) zero-load bound is evaluated separately above the lower unloaded resonance; it does not extend the PO/NP solver to zero load. The displayed peak gain uses FHA because PN/PON peak-gain operation is outside this solver.
References
- onsemi / Fairchild, AN-4151, Half-Bridge LLC Resonant Converter Design Using FSFR-Series Fairchild Power Switch, Rev. 1.0.2 (2014). Attached s2 pp. 4–5: equivalent load and FHA; p. 11: initial design; p. 13: final tank. https://www.onsemi.com/download/application-notes/pdf/an-4151.pdf
- Michael O'Loughlin, TI SLUA923, Improving ZVS and Efficiency in LLC Converters (2018), sections 2–4: magnetizing current, effective output capacitance and dead time. https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/slua923
- X. Fang, H. Hu, Z. J. Shen and I. Batarseh, Operation Mode Analysis and Peak Gain Approximation of the LLC Resonant Converter, IEEE TPEL 27(4), 1985–1995 (2012 journal version). Eqs. (17), (18), (22): P-mode unity gain, resonance load boundary and zero-load gain limit; Sec. V: peaks in PN/PON. Numerical reference cases specialize these analytical limits, not copied tables or figures. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168545
- A. Y. Farag et al., Design Methodology of LLC Resonant Converter for PV-Powered Li-Ion Battery Charger, IEEE Access 13, 115640–115652 (2025), CC BY 4.0. Design-flow context, not a validation of this tool's exact solver. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3585483. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3585483
- X. Fang, H. Hu, J. Shen and I. Batarseh, An Optimal Design of the LLC Resonant Converter Based on Peak Gain Estimation, APEC 2012, pp. 1286–1291 (2012 conference version). Operating-mode and peak-gain design context; its optimized PN/PON design is not implemented here. https://doi.org/10.1109/APEC.2012.6165984
Inputs
| Input | Symbol | Unit | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary bridge | bridge | Half bridge | |
| Output rectifier For center tap, n uses one half of the secondary winding. | rectifier | Full bridge rectifier | |
| Tank selection | sizing | Size from frequency, Q and Lm/Lr | |
| Minimum input voltage | V_min | V | 320 |
| Nominal input voltage | V_nom | V | 400 |
| Maximum input voltage | V_max | V | 420 |
| Target output voltage | V_out | V | 48 |
| Rated output power | P_rated | W | 300 |
| Load fraction 1 = rated power. Exact curves have gaps for unsupported light-load modes. | load | 1 | |
| Turns-ratio selection | ratio | Unity gain at nominal input | |
| Primary-to-secondary turns ratio Np/Ns for bridge rectification; Np/Ns-half for center tap. | n_set | 4.166667 | |
| Design resonant frequency | f_design | kHz | 100 |
| Rated-load quality factor Q | Q_design | 0.45 | |
| Inductance ratio Lm/Lr | Ln_design | 5 | |
| Resonant inductance Lr | Lr_set | uH | 77.404 |
| Resonant capacitance Cr | Cr_set | nF | 32.725 |
| Shunt magnetizing inductance Lm Shunt Lm of the equivalent circuit, not an integrated transformer's open-circuit Lp. | Lm_set | uH | 387.02 |
| Input voltage for waveform and stress | V_test | V | 360 |
| Operating frequency | control | Solve for target output | |
| Switching frequency | f_set | kHz | 85 |
| Effective Coss per primary switch Use time-related Co(tr), or Qoss/Vin at the relevant voltage. | C_oss | pF | 100 |
| Additional capacitance per bridge midpoint | C_node | pF | 50 |
| Dead time | t_dead | ns | 200 |
| Switching-cycle phase ▶ Moves the waveform cursor; tank solving is cached. | phase | 0.18 |
Results
With the default inputs above, the calc gives:
| Result | Value |
|---|---|
| Turns ratio Np/Ns | 4.167 |
| Resonant inductance Lr | 77.404 uH |
| Resonant capacitance Cr | 32.725 nF |
| Magnetizing inductance Lm | 387 uH |
| Tank resonance | 100 kHz |
| Exact operating frequency | 83.366 kHz |
| Ideal operating output | 48 V |
| FHA gain difference (%) | -2.91 |
| Selected-point ZVS screen | Passes charge screening |
| Minimum three-point charge margin | 2.58 |
| Input-range screening result | All three line points pass charge screening |
| Lr and Cr RMS current | 2.038 A |
| Lr and Cr peak current | 3.046 A |
| Each rectifier average current | 3.125 A |
| Cr peak voltage including bias | 348.1 V |
| Cr RMS voltage including bias | 215 V |
| Signed commutation current | 1.353 A |
| Constant-current transition estimate | 66.512 ns |
| Largest Lr/Cr RMS at three line points | 2.229 A |
| Largest Cr voltage at three line points | 371.9 V |
| Peak FHA gain | 1.28 |
| FHA gain at inductive boundary | 1.244 |
| Exact conduction sequence | PO: power transfer, then free resonance |
Checked against sources
Each case below was calculated by this calc and agrees with the value from its source (within the tolerance where one is shown).
AN-4151 initial 192 W tank sizing
Source: onsemi AN-4151, attached page 11 (printed page 9), equations 17–19 and worked design: Rac=197 ohm, Cr=20.2 nF, Lr=126 µH. Tolerances allow published rounding. Lp=630 µH in that note is an integrated-transformer measurement; it is not asserted as this model's shunt Lm.
Inputs: Turns-ratio selection = Enter Np/Ns; Primary-to-secondary turns ratio = 9; Target output voltage = 24 V; Rated output power = 192 W; Minimum input voltage = 349 V; Maximum input voltage = 400 V; Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; Rated-load quality factor Q = 0.4; Inductance ratio Lm/Lr = 4; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Rated reflected FHA load | 197 ± 0.5 Ω | 197 Ω |
| Resonant capacitance Cr | 20.2 ± 0.15 nF | 20.201 nF |
| Resonant inductance Lr | 126 ± 1.5 uH | 125.4 uH |
AN-4151 final tank resonant frequency
Source: onsemi AN-4151, attached page 13 (printed page 11), Table 3: final Lr=118 µH, Cr=22 nF, fo=99 kHz. The exact LC value is about 98.78 kHz, consistent with rounding. Do not transfer the integrated transformer virtual-gain value 1.11 into a simple shunt-Lm model.
Inputs: Tank selection = Check existing component values; Turns-ratio selection = Enter Np/Ns; Primary-to-secondary turns ratio = 9; Target output voltage = 24 V; Rated output power = 192 W; Minimum input voltage = 349 V; Maximum input voltage = 400 V; Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; Resonant inductance Lr = 118 uH; Resonant capacitance Cr = 22 nF; Shunt magnetizing inductance Lm = 512 uH; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Tank resonance | 99 ± 0.5 kHz | 98.78 kHz |
Unity at resonance: FHA and loaded P-mode limit
Source: onsemi AN-4151 Rev. 1.0.2 (2014), attached page 5 (printed page 3), Eq. (7): its FHA model gives unity at series resonance at every load. For the exact operating-mode check, these inputs have Q=0.45 above pi/(4*5)=0.15708, so P mode has unity gain by Fang et al., IEEE TPEL 2012 journal version, Eqs. (17)–(18), DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168545. The FHA statement is not an exact load-independent result below the P/OPO boundary.
Inputs: Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 100 kHz; Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Exact gain at operating point | 1 | 1 |
| FHA gain at the same frequency | 1 | 1 |
| Ideal operating output | 48 V | 48 V |
Farag 2025 measured tank resonance
Source: Farag et al., IEEE Access (2025), DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3585483, author manuscript Table 5: implemented Lr=3.72 µH, Cr=1.34 µF, Lm=18.85 µH, Fr=71.28 kHz and λ=5.07. Independent measured components check the resonance and ratio, not gain accuracy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393351239_Design_methodology_of_LLC_resonant_converter_for_PV-powered_Li-ion_battery_charger
Inputs: Tank selection = Check existing component values; Turns-ratio selection = Enter Np/Ns; Primary-to-secondary turns ratio = 1; Target output voltage = 25.2 V; Rated output power = 126 W; Minimum input voltage = 37.8 V; Nominal input voltage = 40 V; Maximum input voltage = 41.3 V; Input voltage for waveform and stress = 37.8 V; Resonant inductance Lr = 3.72 uH; Resonant capacitance Cr = 1,340 nF; Shunt magnetizing inductance Lm = 18.85 uH; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Tank resonance | 71.28 ± 0.1 kHz | 71.285 kHz |
| Inductance ratio | 5.07 ± 0.01 | 5.067 |
Reject invalid PO at 55 kHz
Source: Independent reviewer regression (user-supplied): at defaults with fs=55 kHz the presumed PO off interval reaches 312.46 V, exceeding nVo=309.66 V. Ideal diodes must turn on; PO must be rejected. This is a model-domain regression, not a published measured point.
Inputs: Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 55 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Supported exact solution flag | 0 | 0 |
Near-resonance PO remains supported
Source: Independent reviewer integration/shooting result provided in the user message: default Q=0.45, Lm/Lr=5, fn=0.9999 has a physically valid PO gain of 1.00004936. Regression against an independent numerical method.
Inputs: Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 99.99 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Exact gain at operating point | 1 | 1 |
| Supported exact solution flag | 1 | 1 |
Physical primary winding includes magnetizing current
Source: Independent reviewer default-case winding stresses supplied in user message: 2.038 A RMS and 3.046 A peak. onsemi AN-4151 attached p.4 explains that primary current includes magnetizing current and secondary current referred to primary.
Inputs: the default inputs above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Component RMS currents [4] | 2.038 A | 2.038 A |
| Component peak currents [4] | 3.046 A | 3.046 A |
Near-resonance NP at 100.001 kHz
Source: Independent SciPy DOP853 ODE integration plus nonlinear shooting of KCL/KVL, working file near_resonance_crosscheck.py: Q=0.45, Ln=5, fn=1.00001 gives M=0.99999506513897, residual below 3e-15. The integrator does not use the calculator's analytical transition matrices. Numerical regression, not measured hardware.
Inputs: Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 100 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Exact gain at operating point | 1 | 1 |
| Supported exact solution flag | 1 | 1 |
Vanishing off interval below resonance
Source: Independent ODE/shooting cross-check in near_resonance_crosscheck.py (SciPy DOP853, rtol=3e-13): fn=0.9999999, Q=0.45, Ln=5 gives M=1.00000004934802. Must not reject the short off interval or replace this neighborhood with a constant unity gain.
Inputs: Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 100 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Exact gain at operating point | 1 | 1 |
| Supported exact solution flag | 1 | 1 |
Vanishing reverse-rectification interval above resonance
Source: Independent ODE/shooting cross-check in near_resonance_crosscheck.py (SciPy DOP853, rtol=3e-13): fn=1.0000001, Q=0.45, Ln=5 gives M=0.99999995065196. Must resolve the short negative rectifier-current interval.
Inputs: Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 100 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Exact gain at operating point | 1 | 1 |
| Supported exact solution flag | 1 | 1 |
Automatic regulation at 399.99 V
Source: Independent ODE/shooting solve for frequency at fixed M=400/399.99, Q=0.45 and Ln=5 in near_resonance_crosscheck.py: fs=99994.934225805 Hz. Regression for the near-nominal input failure reported by the independent reviewer.
Inputs: Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Supported exact solution flag | 1 | 1 |
| Exact operating frequency | 99.995 kHz | 99.995 kHz |
| Ideal operating output | 48 V | 48 V |
Fang Eq. 17: full-bridge P-mode unity gain
Source: Fang et al., IEEE TPEL 27(4), 2012 journal version, Eq. (17), DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168545. Analytical P-mode limit: M=1 and normalized initial magnetizing current −pi/[2(m−1)]. Specialization uses paper m=4 (this tool Lm/Lr=3), fn=1 and Q=0.45 above the Eq. (18) boundary. These are closed-form reference limits, not measured hardware.
Inputs: Primary bridge = Full bridge; Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; Inductance ratio Lm/Lr = 3; Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 100 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Exact gain at operating point | 1 | 1 |
| FHA gain at the same frequency | 1 | 1 |
| Selected exact operating-mode solution [4] | -0.5236 | -0.5236 |
| Ideal operating output | 48 V | 48 V |
Fang Eq. 18: P mode just above the OPO boundary
Source: Fang et al., IEEE TPEL 2012 journal version, Eq. (18), DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168545. At paper m=4, the normalized P/OPO load boundary is 2/(3pi)=0.2122065907891938. With p_n=8Q/pi² this corresponds to Q=pi/12. Q=0.27 is above the boundary; Eq. (17) therefore applies.
Inputs: Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; Inductance ratio Lm/Lr = 3; Rated-load quality factor Q = 0.27; Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 100 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| P/OPO normalized load boundary at resonance | 0.2122 | 0.2122 |
| Minimum Q for unity-gain P mode at resonance | 0.2618 | 0.2618 |
| Supported exact solution flag | 1 | 1 |
| Exact gain at operating point | 1 | 1 |
Fang Eq. 18: reject unity P mode below the load boundary
Source: Fang et al., IEEE TPEL 2012 journal version, Eqs. (17)–(18), DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168545. At paper m=4 and fn=1, Q=0.25 is below pi/12, so OPO replaces unity-gain P mode. The expected flag is rejection by this PO/NP solver, not a claim of physical infeasibility or an OPO gain calculation.
Inputs: Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; Inductance ratio Lm/Lr = 3; Rated-load quality factor Q = 0.25; Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 100 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| P/OPO normalized load boundary at resonance | 0.2122 | 0.2122 |
| Minimum Q for unity-gain P mode at resonance | 0.2618 | 0.2618 |
| Supported exact solution flag | 0 | 0 |
Fang Eq. 22: zero-load gain bound exceeds unity at resonance
Source: Fang et al., IEEE TPEL 2012 journal version, Eq. (22), DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168545. Numerical specialization of the published zero-load inequality at paper m=4, fn=1 gives lower-bound gain 3/(4cos(pi/4))=3sqrt(2)/4. Only the analytical zero-load diagnostic is checked; the selected loaded solution is not a zero-load simulation.
Inputs: Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; Inductance ratio Lm/Lr = 3; Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 100 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Zero-load gain lower bound at operating frequency | 1.061 | 1.061 |
Fang Eq. 22: zero-load gain bound above resonance
Source: Fang et al., IEEE TPEL 2012 journal version, Eq. (22), DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2011.2168545. At paper m=4 and fn=1.5, the zero-load gain lower bound is 3/(4cos(pi/6))=sqrt(3)/2. This checks the frequency and m=1+Lm/Lr normalization of the separate analytical bound, not a loaded gain prediction.
Inputs: Input voltage for waveform and stress = 400 V; Inductance ratio Lm/Lr = 3; Operating frequency = Enter switching frequency; Switching frequency = 150 kHz; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Zero-load gain lower bound at operating frequency | 0.866 | 0.866 |
Related Resources
Related articles
-
Design and Thermal Performance Analysis of a Variable Frequency LLC Resonant DC–DC Converter Using PLECS Simulation -
High Power Efficiency Design Approach of an LLC Resonant Converter for UPS Battery Charger Application and Battery Charge – Discharge Regression Model -
Comparative Performance Analysis of Type-II and Type-III Analog Compensators for Voltage-Mode Buck Converters Using PLECS Simulation

Responses