 Current-sign uncertainty in dead-time compensation

Current-sign uncertainty in dead-time compensation occurs when the direction of measured load electric current does not reliably identify its direction during the switching interval being corrected. The recirculation path during bridge switching dead time depends on that direction. Manufacturer switching diagrams show how the body diodes provide paths when the controlled devices are off.^[ref]

Use the ideal half-bridge model in current-polarity dead-time compensation: bus separation $V_d$, period $T$, effective delay $t_d$, and an actual nonzero current sign $\sigma \in \{-1,1\}$ held constant throughout that interval. Let $a=V_d{t}_d/T$. A commanded additive correction $au$, where $-1\le u\le 1$, leaves average output errorA correct sign gives zero error with $u=\sigma$. An opposite sign gives magnitude $2a$, twice the uncompensated magnitude. For $V_d=48\mathrm{V}$, $t_d=0.5\mu \mathrm{s}$ and $T=50\mu \mathrm{s}$, $a=0.48\mathrm{V}$ and a wrong full-sign correction gives $0.96\mathrm{V}$ error. These conclusions assume unclipped commands and the stated rail-clamping model.

A current-sign certificate from sensor delay combines measurement and motion bounds. Suppose a reading $i_m$ refers to time $t_0-\tau$, has absolute error at most ${ϵ}_i$, and the true current satisfies $|di/dt|\le L_i$ from then through the end of $[t_0,t_0+t_d]$. For every time in that switching interval,This follows by adding the measurement error to the integrated derivative bound. A positive sign is certified if $i_m>b$; a negative sign if $i_m<-b$. Within the remaining band, neither sign is certified by those bounds. At equality, a zero can still occur, so strict sign certification requires a strict inequality.

For an original example, take ${ϵ}_i=0.020\mathrm{A}$, $L_i=5000A/s$, $\tau =2\mu \mathrm{s}$ and $t_d=0.5\mu \mathrm{s}$. Then $b=0.0325\mathrm{A}$. A $0.060\mathrm{A}$ reading certifies positive current, whereas $0.025\mathrm{A}$ permits currents from $-0.0075$ to $0.0575\mathrm{A}$. A sign selected solely from the latter reading can therefore be wrong. A bound covering only the sensing instant would miss the delay contribution.

Robust and probabilistic choices answer different questions. If both signs are possible and nothing else is known, the worst-case error is $a(1+|u|)$; its minimum occurs at $u=0$. If instead a validated conditional probability $p=\mathrm{Pr}(\sigma =1)$ is available and mean squared error is the objective, differentiation givesFor $p=0.75$, the optimal fractional correction is $u=0.5$ and the predicted RMS error is about $0.416\mathrm{V}$ for the bus example. That is a probability-model prediction, not a worst-case sign guarantee.

A proposed validation records sensor timestamps, actual load electric current, gate timing and midpoint electric potential difference on a common time base. Compare integrated cycle errors in certified and uncertified sign intervals, including crossings within the dead time. A dead band or Schmitt trigger can reduce noisy toggling, but holding a previous sign through a genuine crossing can prolong a wrong correction; the relevant test is whether the current-path assumptions and timing bounds hold.