# Design of the Buck Converter without Inductor Current Sensor

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Current Sensor Investigation

_{dc}. The drawback is the additional power consumption in R

_{dc}.

_{x}[21]. However, the V

_{x}has a large voltage swing, which increases the input range requirement of the ACS circuit.

_{1}ON time (T

_{ON}). That means that two sets of voltage-to-current converters are required. Perhaps, the hardware may be further saved. Similarly, [23] proposed the dual loops mechanism buck converter, which uses the input/output voltages to generate T

_{ON}, instead of the current sensor.

## 3. Proposed Control Scheme, Implementation, and Advantages

#### 3.1. Proposed Control Scheme

- (A)
- Proposed adaptive T
_{ON}controllerThrough the V_{o}, the proposed adaptive T_{ON}controller module generates a ramp signal and decides T_{ON}. The differences from the previous works are listed as follows:- (a)
- (b)
- In [23], the T
_{ON}is decided by the voltage (V_{in}-V_{o}). Unlike [23], the T_{ON}is decided only by V_{o}. Moreover, the constant switching frequency mechanism is not the function of V_{o}. From the methodology perspective, the proposed scheme is different from [22]. This paper proposes another solution for the T_{ON}decision. It can further reduce the hardware effort. - (c)

- (B)
- Constant frequency mechanism [28]The work of this module mainly makes the switching frequency constant. The module is composed of a frequency detector.
- (C)
- DRIVER:It mainly provides sufficient driving capacity to drive the MOS switches, S
_{1}and S_{2}.

#### 3.2. Implementation and Operating Principle

_{ON}controller architecture is straightforward and suitable for integration. Second, the circuits do not require a special process to fabricate. Third, the converter uses the constant frequency mechanism module to keep the switching frequency constant instead of PLL. The operation steps of the converter are described as follows (Figure 12):

- Inductor-charging phase (the switch S
_{1}is ON, and the switch S_{2}is OFF):The switch S_{1}ON time is labeled as T_{ON}. In Figure 12, the T_{ON}is decided by V_{CMP}and V_{ramp}. Once V_{ramp}reaches V_{CMP}, the T_{ON}is decided. T_{ON}is the function of V_{ramp}. The relationships between T_{ON}, V_{ramp,}V_{FB,}and V_{o}are as follows:- (a)
- T
_{ON}is the function of V_{ramp}. - (b)
- V
_{ramp}is the function of V_{FB}. - (c)
- The relationship between V
_{o}and V_{FB}is a resistor division.

From (a)~(c), we can conclude that T_{ON}is the function of V_{o}. The larger V_{o}is, the shorter T_{ON}is. - Inductor-discharging phase (the switch S
_{1}is OFF, and the switch S_{2}is ON):The switch S_{1}OFF time (T_{OFF}) is decided by V_{EA1}and V_{ramp2}. Once V_{ramp2}reaches V_{EA1}, the T_{OFF}is decided. The relationship between V_{EA1}and T_{OFF}is the larger V_{EA1}and the longer T_{OFF}. In addition, the V_{EA1}is controlled by the constant frequency mechanism module. - When the system is stable, the V
_{FB}and the V_{freq}are almost equal to the V_{REF}and the V_{REF2}, respectively. The V_{CMP}and the V_{EA1}will eventually converge to their stable voltages. The fundamental waveforms of the converter are drawn in Figure 13.

_{ON}controller.

#### 3.3. Proposed Converter Advantages and Disadvantages

#### 3.3.1. Advantages

- (A)
- The whole circuit does not require a particular process to fabricate.Because the whole circuit does not need special semiconductor devices to implement, there is no need for a specific process in fabrication.
- (B)
- There is no special layout/matching issue in the circuit.Layout is an important step in fabrication. Fortunately, there is no special matching issue in the proposed circuits.
- (C)
- The whole circuit is robust.Each crucial parameter has considered its design margin and the process variation.
- (D)
- The feature of constant switching frequency dramatically reduces the difficulty of solving the EMI issue.The variable switching frequency makes the electromagnetic interference (EMI) filter hard to design.

#### 3.3.2. Disadvantages

- (A)
- The proposed converter has a slight switching frequency drift. The switching frequency is approximately 1.01–1.05 MHz. The variation is about 3.5%. However, this slight variation is acceptable for solving the EMI issue.
- (B)
- The regulation capability is poor at the input voltage of 3.6 V and the output voltage of 1.0 V. The maximum ripple voltage of the output is about 11.2 mV. The performance of the boundary conditions is barely acceptable.

## 4. Theoretical Analysis

#### 4.1. Mathematical Model

_{P}(s) of the buck converter. A(s) represents the error amplifier composed of the transconductance, g

_{m}, and the compensation network.

_{i}, R

_{O}, R

_{3}, and C

_{1}are the key parameters, and the relations are shown in Equations (1)–(3). The purpose of different colors in Figure 14 is to clearly find the function blocks in Figure 12. According to [29,30], in Equation (4), we locate the zero, w

_{z}, at the output pole of the buck converter. The pole, w

_{p}, is a free design parameter. Therefore, we choose a suitable w

_{p}to make the system stable. The design procedure is described in [22,28] and is verified by MathCAD and SIMPLIS.

_{ON}ramp generator, $\mathsf{\omega}=\raisebox{1ex}{$\mathsf{\pi}$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{on}}$}\right.,\mathrm{Q}=\raisebox{1ex}{$2$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\mathsf{\pi}$}\right.$, ${\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{z}}=\frac{1}{{\mathrm{R}}_{3}\xb7{\mathrm{C}}_{1}}$, ${\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{p}}=\frac{1}{{\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{o}}\xb7{\mathrm{C}}_{1}}$.

#### 4.2. Design Parameters and Components Selection

## 5. Simulation Results

#### 5.1. SIMPLIS Schematic

#### 5.2. Transient Performance

_{in}is 3.0–3.6 V and V

_{o}is 1.0–2.5 V. Figure 17 illustrates that the maximum ripple voltage is 11.2 mV at the input voltage of 3.6 V and the output voltage of 1.0 V.

#### 5.3. Load Regulation

#### 5.4. Line Regulation

_{in}is the variation of the input voltage, and ΔV

_{o}is the variation of the output voltage.

#### 5.5. Switching Frequency Regulation

_{freq}to the V

_{REF2}at the lower output voltage. The lower V

_{o}leads to the lower V

_{freq}, slightly weakening the regulation ability.

#### 5.6. Performance List

- (A)
- Compared with [33], the proposed scheme can provide better recovery time.
- (B)
- (C)
- Compared with [23], although the performance on recovery time and switching frequency variation are slightly worse, the control scheme is simple and easy to implement, and these performance differences are not particularly obvious in application.
- (D)
- Compared with [22], this work can provide an approximately constant switching frequency.
- (E)
- Compared with [28], the most significant improvement is that the current sensor is not required. In addition, the proposed converter is straightforward.
- (F)
- (G)
- (H)
- (I)
- (J)
- (K)
- In [35], a current-mode hysteretic buck converter is presented in which the inductor current is sensed by a resistor-capacitor (RC) network. The sensing method is similar to [18]. (Figure 3) From Table 3, the undershoot/overshoot of the converter [34] is larger than 50 mV. In [35], the transient response of the converter is relatively poor.
- (L)

## 6. Conclusions

_{o}to generate the T

_{ON}instead of the current sensor. There are four advantages to this converter. First, the whole circuit does not require a special process to fabricate. Second, there is no special layout-matching issue in the circuit. Third, the whole circuit is robust. Each crucial parameter has considered its design margin and process variation. Forth, the feature of constant switching frequency dramatically reduces the difficulty of solving the EMI issue. The design spec of the buck converter prototype is an output voltage of 1.0–2.5 V at the in-put voltage of 3.0–3.6 V. The driving capacity of the load current ranges from 100 mA to 500 mA. The scheme is verified by SIMPLIS. The simulation results show that the switching frequency variation is less than 3.5% at the output voltage of 1.0–2.5 V. The recovery time is less than 2 μs during the load change. The proposed converter can be implemented further with a 0.35 μm CMOS process.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

T_{ON} | switch S_{1} ON time |

T_{OFF} | switch S_{1} OFF time, (switch S_{1} is shown in Figure 11) |

## References

- Redl, R.; Sun, J. Ripple-based control of switching regulators—An overview. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2009**, 24, 2669–2680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, W.-C. Reduction of equivalent series inductor effect in delay-ripple reshaped constant on-time control for buck converter with multilayer ceramic capacitors. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2013**, 28, 2366–2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, J.J.; Lu, M.-X.; Wu, T.-H.; Hwang, Y.S. Sub-1-V fast response hysteresis-controlled CMOS buck converter using adaptive ramp techniques. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Syst.
**2013**, 21, 1608–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, J.J.; Hwang, Y.S.; Chen, J.H.; Ku, Y.T.; Yu, C.C. A New Fast-Response Current-Mode Buck Converter with Improved I
^{2}-Controlled Techniques. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst.**2018**, 26, 903–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, W.W.; Chen, J.F.; Liang, T.J.; Wei, L.C.; Ting, W.Y. Designing a Dynamic Ramp with an Invariant Inductor in Current-Mode Control for an On-Chip Buck Converter. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2014**, 29, 750–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saini, D.K.; Reatti, A.; Kazimierczuk, M.K. Average Current-Mode Control of Buck DC-DC Converter with Reduced Control Voltage Ripple. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON, Florence, Italy, 24–27 October 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, J.M.; Wang, P.Y.; Kuo, T.H. A current-mode DC–DC buck converter with efficiency-optimized frequency control and reconfigurable compensation. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2012**, 27, 3085–3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, Y.; Chen, C.; Tsai, C. A Constant On-Time Buck Converter with Analog Time-Optimized On-Time Control. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2020**, 35, 3754–3765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zheng, Y.; Chen, H.; Leung, K.N. A fast-response pseudo-PWM buck converter with PLL-based hysteresis control. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst.
**2012**, 20, 1167–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yuan, B.; Liu, M.; Ng, W.T.; Lai, X. A Fast-Response RBAOT-Controlled Buck Converter with Pseudofixed Switching Frequency and Enhanced Output Accuracy. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron.
**2021**, 9, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aiello, O. Hall-Effect Current Sensors Susceptibility to EMI: Experimental Study. Electronics
**2019**, 8, 1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Aiello, O.; Fiori, F. A New MagFET-Based Integrated Current Sensor Highly Immune to EMI. Microelectron. Reliab.
**2013**, 53, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dalessandro, L.; Karrer, N.; Kolar, J.W. High-Performance Planar Isolated Current Sensor for Power Electronics Applications. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2007**, 22, 1682–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ouyang, Y.; He, J.; Hu, J.; Wang, S.X. A current sensor based on the giant magnetoresistance effect: Design and potential smart grid applications. Sensors
**2012**, 12, 15520–15541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Jantaratana, P.; Sirisathitkul, C. Low-cost sensors based on the GMI effect in recycled transformer cores. Sensors
**2008**, 8, 1575–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version] - Sheehan, R. Understanding and Applying Current-Mode Control Theory. Texas Instruments Technical Document Application Reports. Literature Number: SNVA555. 2007. Available online: https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/snva555 (accessed on 31 August 2021).
- Song, C. Accuracy Analysis of Constant-On Current-Mode DC-DC Converters for Powering Microprocessors. In Proceedings of the 2009 Twenty-Fourth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, Washington, DC, USA, 21 March 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, S.; Zeng, P.; Chen, J.; Zhou, W.; Wang, J.; Luo, P.; Zhang, B. Transient Response Improvement of DC-DC Converter by Current Mode Variable on Time Control. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 61st International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS), Windsor, ON, Canada, 5–8 August 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.J.; Hwang, Y.S.; Ku, Y.T.; Li, Y.H.; Chen, J.A. A Current-Mode-Hysteretic Buck Converter with Constant-Frequency-Controlled and New Active-Current-Sensing Techniques. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2021**, 36, 3126–3134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hwang, Y.S.; Chen, J.J.; Ku, Y.T.; Yang, J.Y. An Improved Optimum-Damping Current-Mode Buck Converter with Fast-Transient Response and Small-Transient Voltage Using New Current Sensing Circuits. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
**2021**, 68, 9505–9514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, J.-J. An Active Current-Sensing Constant-Frequency HCC Buck Converter using Phase-Frequency-Locked Techniques. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control
**2008**, 55, 761–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chou, H.-H.; Chen, H.-L.; Fan, Y.-H.; Wang, S.-F. Adaptive On-Time Control Buck Converter with a Novel Virtual Inductor Current Circuit. Electronics
**2021**, 10, 2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chou, H.-H.; Luo, W.-H.; Chen, H.-L.; Wang, S.-F. A Novel Buck Converter with Dual Loops Control Mechanism. Electronics
**2022**, 11, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jeon, I.; Min, K.; Park, J.; Roh, J.; Moon, D.; Kim, H. A Constant On-Time Buck Converter with Fully Integrated Average Current Sensing Scheme. In Proceedings of the 2021 18th International SoC Conference (ISOCC 2021), Jeju, Korea, 6–9 October 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.-J.; Hwang, Y.-S.; Jiang, W.-M.; Lai, C.-H.; Ku, J. A New Improved Ultra-Fast-Response Low-Transient-Voltage Buck Converter with Transient-Acceleration Loops and V-Cubic Techniques. IEEE Access
**2022**, 10, 3601–3607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, J.-J.; Hwang, Y.-S.; Liu, H., Jr.; Lai, C.-H.; Ku, Y. A Low-Noise Fast-Transient-Response Buck Converter Suitable for Sensor Networks with New Transient-Accelerated-Circuits. IEEE Sens. J.
**2022**, 22, 2868–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ul Ain, Q.; Khan, D.; Jang, B.G.; Basim, M.; Shehzad, K.; Asif, M. A High-Efficiency Fast Transient COT Control DC–DC Buck Converter with Current Reused Current Sensor. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2021**, 36, 9521–9535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chou, H.-H.; Chen, H.-L. A Novel Buck Converter with Constant Frequency Controlled Technique. Energies
**2021**, 14, 5911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, J.; Lee, F.C. New modeling approach and equivalent circuit representation for current-mode control. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
**2010**, 25, 1218–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Enrique, J.M.; Barragán, A.J.; Durán, E.; Andújar, J.M.; Gómez, J.M.E.; Piña, A.J.B.; Aranda, E.D.; Márquez, J.M.A. Theoretical Assessment of DC/DC Power Converters’ Basic Topologies. A Common Static Model. Appl. Sci.
**2017**, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Suntio, T. Dynamic Modeling and Analysis of PCM-Controlled DCM-Operating Buck Converters—A Reexamination. Energies
**2018**, 11, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Ridley, R.B. An Accurate and Practical Small-Signal Model for Current-Mode Control. Available online: www.ridleyengineering.com (accessed on 24 July 2021).
- Jiang, C.R.; Chai, C.C.; Han, C.X.; Yang, Y.T. A high performance adaptive on-time controlled valley-current-mode DCDC buck converter. J. Semicond.
**2020**, 41, 062406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jeong, M.-G.; Kang, J.-G.; Park, J.; Yoo, C. A Current-Mode Hysteretic Buck Converter with Multiple-Reset RC-Based Inductor Current Sensor. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
**2019**, 66, 8445–8453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nashed, M.; Fayed, A.A. Current-mode hysteretic buck converter with spur-free control for variable switching noise mitigation. IEEE Trans. Power Electron
**2018**, 33, 650–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jung, D.-H.; Kim, K.; Joo, S.; Jung, S.-O. 0.293-mm
^{2}fast transient response hysteretic quasi-V^{2}DC-DC converter with area-efficient timedomain-based controller in 0.35-μm CMOS. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits**2018**, 53, 1844–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, J.J.; Hwang, Y.S.; Lin, J.Y.; Ku, Y. A dead-beat-controlled fast-transient-response buck converter with active pseudo-current-sensing techniques. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. Syst.
**2019**, 27, 1751–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Symbol | Value | Unit |
---|---|---|

R_{LOAD} | 3.6 | Ω |

C_{o} | 10 | μF |

L | 4.7 | μH |

R_{ESR} | 5 | mΩ |

R_{o} | 1 | MΩ |

R_{3} | 251 | kΩ |

C_{1} | 220 | p F |

Parameter | Conditions | Min. | Typ. | Max. | Unit |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Input voltage | 3.0 | 3.6 | V | ||

Output voltage | 1.0 | 2.5 | V | ||

Output ripple | V_{in} = 3.6 V, V_{o} = 2.5 V | 11 | mV | ||

Load current | 100 | 500 | mA | ||

Inductor | DCR *: 30 mΩ | 4.7 | μH | ||

Output capacitor | ESR: 5 mΩ | 10 | μF | ||

Switching frequency | V_{in} = 3.0~3.6 V, V_{o} = 1.0~2.5 V | 1 | MHz | ||

Recovery time (step-up) | V_{o} = 1.8 VLoad current: 100 mA to 500 mA | 1.8 | μs | ||

Recovery time (step-down) | V_{o} = 1.8 VLoad current: 500 mA to 100 mA | 1.5 | μs | ||

Overshoot voltage | V_{in} = 3.3 V, V_{o} = 1.8 V | 21 | mV | ||

Undershoot voltage | V_{in} = 3.3 V, V_{o} = 1.8 V | 30 | mV |

References | 2020 [33] | 2022 [23] | 2021 [22] | 2021 [28] | This Work |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Results | simulation | simulation | simulation | simulation | simulation |

Control scheme | AOT | dual loops | AOT | AOT | AOT |

Process (μm) | 0.18 | 0.35 ** | 0.35 * | 0.18 * | 0.35 * |

Input voltage (V) | 3.3–5.0 | 3.0–3.6 | 3.0–3.6 | 3.0–3.6 | 3.0–3.6 |

Output voltage (V) | 1.8 | 1.0–2.5 | 1.0–2.5 | 1.0–2.5 | 1.0–2.5 |

Inductor (μH) | 1.5 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 |

Output capacitor (μF) | 20 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |

Switching frequency (MHz) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

Switching frequency variation (%) | N/A | 1 | N/A | 1 | 3.5 |

Max. load current (mA) | 2000 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 |

Load current step (mA) | 800 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 |

Undershoot/Overshoot (mV) | 13/14 | 16/12 | 23/26 | 20/24 | 21/30 |

Recovery time (μs) (rise/fall) | 6/2 | 1.5/0.9 | 1.98/1.6 | 1.69/1.62 | 1.8/1.5 |

References | 2022 [26] | 2021 [19] | 2022 [25] | 2021 [27] | 2021 [24] |

Results | measurement | measurement | measurement | measurement | measurement |

Control scheme | 2nd CT-DSM ** | Hysteretic PLL | AOT | COT | COT |

Process (μm) | 0.18 | 0.35 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.18 |

Input voltage (V) | 3.0–3.6 | 3.3–3.6 | 1.6–2.2 | 7–15 | 4.25–15 |

Output voltage (V) | 1–2.5 | 0.9–2.5 | 0.4–1.2 | 5–7 | 1.1 |

Inductor (μH) | 2.2 | 4.7 | 0.33 | 2.2 | 0.47 |

Output capacitor (μF) | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 47 × 3 |

Switching frequency (MHz) | 10 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0.5–1.25 |

Switching frequency variation (%) | N/A | 1 | N/A | N/A | 42 |

Max. load current (mA) | N/A | 600 | 500 | 2000 | 5000 |

Load current step (mA) | 400 | 400 | 450 | 2000 | 5000 |

Undershoot/Overshoot (mV) | 25/22 | 30/60 | 20/20 | 85/72 | 30/15.7 |

Recovery time (μs) (rise/fall) | 3/3 | 2.6/2.2 | 3.4/3.6 | 3/2.7 | 80/45 |

References | 2019 [34] | 2018 [35] | 2018 [36] | 2021 [37] | 2019 [20] |

Results | measurement | measurement | measurement | measurement | measurement |

Control scheme | Current-Mode Hysteretic | Current-Mode Hysteretic | Quasi-V^{2}hysteretic | DBC *** | DBC *** |

Process (μm) | 0.065 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.35 |

Input voltage (V) | 3.3 | 2.7–4.2 | 3.3 | 2.8–4 | 2.5–3.6 |

Output voltage (V) | 0.6–2.0 | 1.2–1.8 | 1.5–1.8 | 1.4–2.5 | 0.8–2.5 |

Inductor (μH) | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 3.3 |

Output capacitor (μF) | 10 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 10 | 10 |

Switching frequency (MHz) | 1 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 1 | 1 |

Switching frequency variation (%) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |

Max. load current (mA) | 1500 | 600 | 700 | 700 | 600 |

Load current step (mA) | 900 | 500 | 510 | 550 | 450 |

Undershoot/Overshoot (mV) | 106/87 | 47/44 | 38/20 | 45/40 | 50/65 |

Recovery time (μs) (rise/fall) | 3.4/3.6 | 4.7/5.2 | 2.5/2.6 | 1.8/1.8 | 2/2 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Chou, H.-H.; Luo, W.-H.; Wang, S.-F.
Design of the Buck Converter without Inductor Current Sensor. *Electronics* **2022**, *11*, 1484.
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11091484

**AMA Style**

Chou H-H, Luo W-H, Wang S-F.
Design of the Buck Converter without Inductor Current Sensor. *Electronics*. 2022; 11(9):1484.
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11091484

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Chou, Hsiao-Hsing, Wen-Hao Luo, and San-Fu Wang.
2022. "Design of the Buck Converter without Inductor Current Sensor" *Electronics* 11, no. 9: 1484.
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11091484