Category: Blog

Home  ›  Blog  ›  Page 20

AQ: Right Half Plane Pole

Very few know about the Right Half Plane Pole (not a RHP-Zero) at high duty cycle in a DCM buck with current mode control. Maybe because it is not really a problem.
It is said that this instability starts above 2/3 duty cycle – I think that must be with a resistive load. If loaded with a pure current source, it starts above 50% duty cycle.

Here is a little down-to-earth explanation:
If you run a buck converter at high duty cycle but DCM, it probably works fine and is completely stable. Then imagine you suddenly open the feedback loop, leaving the peak current constant and unchanged. The duty cycle will then rush either back to 50% or to 100% if possible. You now have a system with a negative output resistance – if Voltage goes up, the output current will increase.

You can see it by drawing some triangles on a piece of paper: A steady state DCM current triangle with an up-slope longer than the down-slope and a fixed peak value. Now, if you imagine that the output voltage rises, you can draw a new triangle with the same peak current. The up-slope will be longer, the down-slope will be shorter but the sum of times will be longer than in the steady state case. The new triangle therefore has a larger area than the steady state triangle, which means a higher average output current. So higher output voltage generates higher output current if peak current is constant. Loaded with a current source, it is clear that this is an unstable system, like a flipflop, and it starts becoming unstable above 50% duty cycle.

However, when you close the feedback loop, the system is (conditionally) stable and the loop gain is normally so high at the RHP Pole frequency that it requires a huge gain reduction to make it unstable.

It’s like when you drive on your bike. A bike has two wheels and therefore can tilt to either side – it is a system with a low frequency RHPP like a flipflop. If you stand still, it will certainly tilt to the left or to the right because you have no way to adjust your balance back. But if you drive, you have a system with feedback where you can immediately correct imbalance by turning the handlebars. As we know, this system is stable unless you have drunk a lot of beers.

AQ: What causes VFD driven motor bearing current?

There are several things involved, all with varying degrees of impact.

Large machines are – generally speaking – made of pieces (segments) because the circle for the stator and/or rotor core is too large to manufacture from a single sheet. This leads to some breaks in the magnetic flux path symmetry, both in the radial (right angles to the shaft) and axial (parallel to the shaft) directions.

For the most part, the windings of large machines are formed and installed by hand. This too can lead to symmetry issues, as the current paths are not identical which in turn will create some differences in the magnetic field flux.

Output waveforms from power electronics are only approximations of true sinusoids. The presence of additional harmonics distorts the sinusoidal nature and results in changes that are not symmetric in the magnetic field strength … which in turn means a non-symmetric flux distribution.

Two other items contribute to potentially damaging bearing currents as well. One of these is the Common Mode Voltage which is present (to some degree) in all drives. Essentially this is a signal that is present at both the drive input and output … I tend to think of it as an offset. It’s not something that traditional grounding addresses, and can create an elevated potential in the shaft which then discharges through the bearing path.

A second item is not related to the presence (or absence) of drives at all; it is related to the mechanical arrangement of the process drive train. For example, a shaft that has a sliding seal (like the felt curtain on a dryer section), or one that turns a blade against a gas or liquid (like a compressor) can generate a static charge at the point of contact. If there is no means of isolating this charge to the portion of the shaft where the sliding is occurring, it can pass through to the motor shaft and thence through the motor bearings.

Lastly – the frequency of the variable frequency drive harmonics in the output waveform is significantly higher than line frequency. This requires specific accommodations for grounding as traditional methods are insufficient due to the attenuation caused by the relatively high resistance ground path.

AQ: Avoid voltage drop influence

My cable size and transformer size should give me maximum 3% on the worst 6% to 10%. If it is the single only equipment on the system then maybe you can tolerate 15%. If not, dip factor may affect sensitive equipment and lighting.

This is very annoying for office staff each time a machine starts lights are dimming. It does not matter what standard you quote I cannot accept 10%- 15% make precise calculation and add a 10% tolerance to avoid.

In most cases, this problem comes from cable under sizing so we have to settle with a Standard giving 15% Max.

Just recently I had to order a transformer and cable change for a project which was grossly undersized.
I have had to redesign the electrical portion of a conveyor and crushing system to bring the system design into compliance with applicable safety codes. The site was outdoor at a mine in Arizona where ambient temperatures reach 120F. The electrical calculation and design software did not include any derating of conductor sizes for cable spacing and density within cable trays, number of conductors per raceway, ambient temperature versus cable temperature rating, etc. Few of the cables had been increased in size to compensate for voltage drop between the power source and the respective motor or transformer loads.

Feeder cables to remote power distribution centers were too small, as voltage drop had not been incorporated in the initial design. The voltage drop should not be greater than 3%, as there will be other factors of alternating loads, system voltage, etc. that may result in an overall drop of 5%.

The electrical system had to be re-designed with larger cables, transformer, MCCS, etc, as none of the design software factors in the required deratings specified in the National Electric Code NFPA70 nor the Canadian Electric Code, which references the NEC.

AQ: Experience: Flyback

My first SMPS design was a multiple output flyback. This was in 1976, when there were no PWM controllers. So I used a 556 (1/2 osc -30 kHz, and 1/2 PWM generator) plus used a 3904 NPN where the VBE was the reference and also provided gain for the error amp function. I hap-hazardly wound the windings on a 25 mm torroid. It ranglike a tank circuit. I quickly abandoned the transformer and after a year, and many hours on the bench, I had a production-grad SMPS.
Since it went into a private aircraft weather reader system, I needed an exterier SMPS which was a buck converter. I used an LM105 linear regulator with positive feedback to make it oscillate (one of nationals ap notes). It worked, but I soon learned that the electrolytic capacitors lost all of their capacitance at -25 deg C. It later worked with military-grade capacitors.

I had small hills of dead MOSFETs and the directly attached controllers. When the first power MOSFETs emerged in 1979, I blew-up so many that I almost wrote them off. They had some real issues with D-S voltage overstress. They have come a long way since.

As far as very wide range flyback converter, please dig-up AN1327 on the ONSEMI website. This describes a control strategy (fixed off-time, variable on-time) and the transformer design.
The processor to that was a 3W flyback that drove 3 floating gate drive circuits and had an input range of 85 VAC to 576 VAC. It was for a 3 phase industrial motor drive. The toughest area was the transformer. To meet the isolation requirements of the UL, and IEC, it would have required a very large core, and bobbin plus a lot of tape. The PCB had the dimensions of 50 mm x 50 mm and 9 mm thick A magnetics designer named Jeff Brown from Cramerco.com is now my magnetics God. He designed me a custom core and bobbin that was 10 mm high on basically an EF15 sized core. The 3 piece bobbin met all of the spacing requirements without tape. The customer was expecting a 2 – 3 tier product offering for the different voltage ranges, but instead could offer only one. They were thrilled.

Can be done, watch your breakdown voltages, spacings and RMS currents. I found that around 17 -20 watts is about the practical limit for an EF40 core before the transformer RMS currents get too high.

AQ: Impedance analyzer

A graphical impedance analyzer with good phase resolution is a must. Some brands have all the bells and whistles, but not the phase resolution necessary to accurately measure high Q (100+) components over the instrument’s full frequency range (which should extend at least into the low megahertz). Of course the Agilent 4294A fills the performance bill, but with a $40k+ purchase bill, it also empties the budget (like similar high end new models from Wayne Kerr). Used models from Wayne Kerr work very well, and can be had for under $10K but they are very heavy and clunky with very ugly (but still useable) displays.

Perhaps the best value may be the Hioki IM3570, which works extremely well with superior phase resolution, has a very nice color touch screen display (with all the expected engineering graphing formats), is compact and lightweight, and costs around $10k new. Its only downside is that its fan is annoyingly loud and does not reduce its noise output during instrument idle.

But where should an impedance analyzer rank on the power electronics design engineer’s basic equipment list (and why)?

Beyond the basic lower cost necessities such as DMMs, bench power supplies, test leads, soldering stations, etcetera, I would rank a good impedance analyzer second only to a good oscilloscope. The impedance analyzer allows one to see all of a component’s secondary impedance characteristics and to directly compare similar components. Often overlooked is the information such an instrument can provide by examining component assemblies in situ in a circuit board assembly. Sometimes this can be very revealing of hidden, but influential layout parasitics.

Equally importantly, an impedance analyzer allows accurate SPICE models to be quickly formulated so that simulation can be used as a meaningful design tool. Transformer magnetizing and leakage inductances can be measured as well as inter-winding capacitance and frequency dependent resistive losses. From these measurements and with proper technique, a model can be formulated that nearly exactly matches the real part. Not only does this allow power circuits and control loops to be initially designed entirely by simulation (under the judicious eye of experience, of course), but it even allows one to effectively simulate the low frequency end of a design’s EMI performance.

AQ: Electronic industry standards

You know standards for the electronic industry have been around for decades, so each of the interfaces we have discussed does have a standard. Those standards may be revised but will still be used by all segments of our respective engineering disciplines.

Note for example back in the early 1990s many big companies HP, Boeing, Honeywell … formed a standards board and developed the Software standards( basic recommendations) for software practices for programming of flight systems. It was not the government it was the industry that took on the effort. The recommendations are still used. So an effort is first needed by a meeting of the minds in the industry.

Now we have plenty of standards on the books for the industry, RS-422, RS-232, 802.1 … and the list goes on and on. The point is most of the companies are conforming to standards that may have been the preferred method when that product was developed.

In the discussion I have not seen what the top preferred interfaces are. I know in many of the developments I have been involved in we ended up using protocol converters, Rs-232 to 802.3, 422 to 485 … that’s the way it’s been in control systems, monitoring systems, Launch systems and factory automation. And in a few projects no technology existed for the interface layer, had to build from scratch. Note the evolution of ARPA net to Ethernet to the many variations that are available today.

So for the short hall if I wanted to be more comparative I would use multiple interfaces on my hardware say usb, wireless, and 422. Note for new developments. With the advancement in PSOCS and other forms of program logic interface solutions are available to the engineer.

Start the interface standards with the system engineers and a little research on the characteristic of the many automation components and select the ones that comply with the goals and the ones that don’t will eventually become obsolete. If anything, work on some system standards. If the customer is defining the system loan him a systems engineer, and make the case for the devises your system or box can support, if you find your product falls short build a new version. Team with other automation companies on projects and learn from each other. It’s easy to find issues as to why you can’t succeed because of product differences, so break down the issues into manageable objectives and solve one issue at a time. As they say divide and concur.

AQ: Spread spectrum of power supply

Having lead design efforts for very sensitive instrumentation with high frequency A/D converters with greater than 20-bits of resolution my viewpoint is mainly concerned about the noise in the regulated supply output. In these designs fairly typical 50-mV peak-to-peak noise is totally unacceptable and some customers cannot stand 1-uVrms noise at certain frequencies. While spread spectrum may help the power supply designer it may also raise havoc with the user of the regulated output. The amplitude of the switching spikes (input or output) as some have said, are not reduced by dithering the switching frequency. Sometimes locking the switching time, where in time, it does not interfere with the circuits using the output can help. Some may also think this is cheating but as was said it is very difficult getting rid of most 10megHz noise. This extremely difficulty applies for many of the harmonics above 100kHz. (For beginners who think that being 20 to 100 times higher than the LC filter will reduce the switching noise by 40 to 200 are sadly wrong as once you pass 100kHz many capacitors and inductors have parasitics making it very hard to get high attenuation in one LC stage and often there is not room for more. More inductors often introduce more losses as well.) We should be reducing all the noise we can and then use other techniques as necessary. With spread spectrum becoming more popular we may soon see regulation on its total noise output as well.

One form of troublesome noise is common mode noise coming out of the power inputs to the power supply. If this is present on the power input to the power supply it is very likely it is also present in the “regulated” output power if floating. Here careful design of the switching power magnetics and care in the layout can help minimize this noise enough, that filters may be able to keep the residual within acceptable limits. Ray discusses some of this in his class but many non-linear managers frequently do not think it is reasonable or necessary for the power supply design engineer to be involved in layout or location of copper traces. Why not, the companies that sell the multi-$100K+ software told their bosses the software automatically optimizes and routs the traces.

Spread spectrum is a tool that may be useful to some but not to all. I hope the sales pitch for those control chips do not lull unsuspecting new designers into complacency about their filter requirements.

AQ: Home automation concept

The concept of home automation on a global scale is a good concept. How to implement such a technology on a global scale is an interesting problem, or I should say issues to be resolved. Before global approval can be accomplished the product of home automation may need a strategy that starts with a look at companies that have succeeded in getting global approval of their products.

If we look at what companies that have the most products distributed around the world we see that Intel is one of these companies. What’s interesting is that this company has used automation in their Fabs for decades. This automation has allowed them to produce their products faster and cheaper than the rest of the industry. The company continues to invest in automation and the ability to evolve with technology and management. We have many companies that compete on the world stage; I don’t think many of these companies distribute as much product. So to compete at a level to make home automation accepted and to accomplish global acceptance the industry and the factories have to evolve to compete. That mission by the automation can be accomplished by adapting a strategy that updates their automation in their factories, stop using products that were used and developed in the 1970s (another way of saying COTS) and progress to current and new systems. A ten years old Factory may be considered obsolete if the equipment inside is as old as the factory.

Now for cost, when I thank of PLC or commercial controllers I see a COTS product that may be using obsolete parts that are not in production any more or old boards. So I see higher cost for manufacturing, a reduction in reliability. Now many procurement people evaluate risk in such a way that may rate older boards lower in risk for the short term, not a good evaluation for the long term. The cost is a function of how much product can be produced at the lowest cost and how efficient and competitive the company that produces the product. So time is money. The responsibility for cost is the company and the ability to produce a competitive product, not the government.

Now into control systems and safety, if the automation system is used in the house safety has to be a major consideration. I know at Intel Fabs if you violate any safety rule you won’t be working at that company long. To address safety the product must conform to the appropriate standards. Safety should be a selling point for home automation. Automation engineers should get and remember safety is one of the main considerations for an engineer. If someone gets hurt or killed because of a safety issue the first person looked at is the engineer.

Now 30% energy saving in my book is not enough, 35 to 40 percent should be a goal. Now solar cells have improved but the most efficient in the south west US. The Sterling engines are 1960 designs and use rare gases such as helium which may not be a renewable resource, Wind generators need space and are electromechanical so reliability and maintenance needs improving.

Now on to the interface standards, most modern factories that produce processors use the Generic equipment Manufacture standard, good deal works. As far as what and when to uses a standard interface, on BOX produced by one company may use RE-422 where another company may use RS 485 so the system engineer should resolve these issues before detailed design starts. Check with IEEE. Or you may be able to find the spec at every spec.com this is a good place to look for some of the specs needed.

So I conclude, many issues exist, and when broken down home automation is viable and needs a concerted effort and commitment from at least the companies and management that produce products for automation and a different model for manufacturing and growing the home systems.
Home automation with a focus on energy savings as a goal is a good thing. We have a lot of work to ma

AQ: Signal processing and communications theory

Coming from a signal processing and communications theory background, but with some experience in power design, I can’t resist the urge to chime in with a few remarks.

There are many engineering methods to deal with sources of interference, including noise from switching converters, and spread spectrum techniques are simply one more tool that may be applied to achieve a desired level of performance.

Spread spectrum techniques will indeed allow a quasi-peak EMC test to be passed when it might otherwise be failed. Is this an appropriate application for this technique?

The quasi-peak detector was developed with the intention to provide a benchmark for determining the psycho-acoustic “annoyance” of an interference on analog communications systems (more specifically, predominantly narrow band AM type communication systems). Spread spectrum techniques resulting in a reduced QP detector reading will almost undoubtedly reduce the annoyance the interference would have otherwise presented to the listener. Thus the intent was to reduce the degree of objectionable interference and the application of spread spectrum meets that goal. This doesn’t seem at all like “cheating” to me; the proper intent of the regulatory limit is still being met.

On the other hand, as earlier posters have pointed out, the application of spectrum spreading does nothing to reduce the total power of the interference but simply spreads it over a wider bandwidth. Spreading the noise over a wider bandwidth provides two potential benefits. The most obvious benefit occurs if the victim of the interference is inherently narrowband. Spreading the spectrum of the interference beyond the victim bandwidth provides an inherent improvement in signal to noise ratio. A second, perhaps less obvious, benefit is that the interference becomes more noise like in its statistics. Noise like interference is less objectionable to the human ear than impulsive noise but it should also be recognized that it is less objectionable to many digital transmission systems too.

However, from an information theoretic perspective the nature of the interference doesn’t matter, but rather only the signal to noise ratio matters. Many modern communication systems employ wide bandwidths. Furthermore they employ powerful adaptive modulation and coding schemes that will effectively de-correlate interference sources (makes the effect noise like); these receivers don’t care whether the interference is narrow band or wide band in terms of bit error rate (BER) and they will be effected largely the same by a given amount of interference power (in theory identically the same, but implementation limitations still provide some gap to the theoretical limits).

It is worth noting however that while spectrum spreading techniques do not reduce the interference power they don’t make it any worse either. Thus these techniques may (I would argue legitimately as per above) help with passing a test which specified the CISPR Quasi-Peak detector and should not make the performance on a test specifying the newer CISPR RMS+Average test any worse.

It should always be an engineering goal to keep interference to a reasonable minimum and I would agree that it is aesthetically most satisfying (and often cheapest and most simple) to achieve this objective by somehow reducing the interference at source (this is a wide definition covering aspects of SMPS design from topology selection to PCB layout and beyond). However, the objective to control noise at the source shouldn’t eliminate alternative methods from consideration in any given application.

There will always be the question of how good is good enough and it is the job of various regulatory bodies to define these requirements and to do so robustly enough such that the compliance tests can’t be “gamed”.

AQ: Friendly system without technicians diagnose

How to make our systems so friendly that they do not need technicians to help diagnose problems? Most of the more obvious answers have been well documented here but to emphasize these points it is normally the case that diagnostics and alarms can dominate the amount of code constructed for an application. That is the amount of code required to fully diagnose an application may be as much if not more than the code required to make the application work in the first place!

I have seen HMIs with diagnostic screens showing an animated version of the Cause & Effects code that allows users to see where the trip condition is. I have also seen screens depicting prestart checks, Operator guides, etc all animated to help the user. Allen-Bradley even have a program viewer that can be embedded on an HMI screen but you would probably need a technician to understand the code.

From a control system problem perspective it is inevitable that you would need to use the vendor based diagnostics to troubleshoot your system. Alarms may indicate that there is a system related problem but it is unlikely that you could build a true diagnostics application in your code to indicate the full spectrum of problems you may encounter. For example if the CPU dies or the memory fails there is nothing left to tell you what the problem is 🙂

From an application/process problem perspective if you have to resort to a technician to go into the code to determine your problem then your alarm and diagnostics code is not comprehensive enough! Remember your alarming guidelines an Operator must be able to deal with an abnormal situation within a given time frame, if the Operator has to rely on a Technician to wade through code then you really do need to perform an alarm review and build a better diagnostics system.