Category: Blog

Home  ›  Blog  ›  Page 20

AQ: Constant on-time control

There are three different more or less widely used types of constant on-time control. The first one is where the off-time is varied with an error signal. A loop with this type of control has a control-to-output voltage frequency response (or Bode plot if you prefer) similar to that of the constant-frequency voltage-mode control. The second one is where the off-time is terminated with a comparator that monitors the inductor current, and when that current goes below a level set by the error signal, the switch is turned on. This control (also called constant on-time valley-current control) has a control-to-output voltage frequency response similar to the constant-frequency valley-current control. The main difference is that its inner current-control loop does not suffer from the subharmonic instability of the constant-frequency version, so it does not require a stabilizing ramp and the control-to-output voltage response does not show the half-frequency peaking. The third version is where the off-time is terminated when the output voltage (or a fraction of it) goes below the reference voltage. This control belongs to the family of ripple-based controls and it cannot be characterized with the usual averaging-based control-to-output frequency response, for the reason that the gain is affected by the output ripple voltage itself.

As for the hysteretic control, the current-mode version is a close relative of the constant on-time valley-current-control. The version that uses the output ripple voltage instead of the inductor current ripple for turning on and off the switch (also called “hysteretic regulator”) is a close relative of the constant on-time ripple-based control.

Although the ripple-based control loops cannot be characterized with the usual Bode plots, the converters can still be unstable, but not in the meaning of the traditional control-loop instability that power-supply engineers are used to. Furthermore the hysteretic regulator is essentially unconditionally stable. The instabilities with ripple-based control are called “fast-scale” because the frequency of the instability is closely related to the switching frequency (either subharmonic, similar to the inner-loop instability of some of the current-mode controller, or chaotic in nature).

The paper I wrote a couple of years ago (“Ripple-Based Control of Switching Regulators—An Overview”) is a good introduction to ripple-based control and discusses some of the stability issues. There are also quite a few papers with detailed analyses on the stability of converters with feedback loops where the ripple content of the feedback signal is significant.

AQ: Power supply prototype failures

I remember my very first power supply. They threw me in the deep end in 1981 building a multi-output 1 kW power supply. I was fresh from college, thought i knew everything, and consumed publications voraciously to learn more. Exciting times.

But nothing prepared me for the hardware trials and tribulations. We built things and they blew up. Literally. We would consume FETs and controllers at an alarming rate. The rep from Unitrode would come and visit and roll his eyes when we told him we needed another dozen controllers since yesterday.

The reasons for failure were all over the map . EMI, heat, layout issues, design issues, bad components (we had some notorious early GE parts – they exited the market shortly afterwards.)
Some of the issues took a few days to fix, some of them took weeks. We had two years to get the product ready, which was faster than the computer guys were doing their part, so it was OK.

90% of the failure issues weren’t talked about in any paper, and to this day, most of them still aren’t.

So, fast forward to today, 32 years later. I still like to build hardware – you can’t teach what you don’t practise regularly, so I keep at it.

With all the benefit of 3 decades of knowledge I STILL blow things up. Everything progresses along fine, then i touch a sensitive circuit node, or miss some critical design point and off it goes. I’m faster now at finding the mistakes but I still find there are new ones to be made. And when it blows up with 400 V applied, it’s a mess and a few hours to rebuild. Or you have to start over sometimes, if the PCB traces are vaporized.

So my first prototype, while on a PC board, always includes the controller in a socket because I know I will need that. Magnetics too, when possible, I know I’ll revise them time and again to tweak performance. PC boards will be a minimum of two passes, probably three.

AQ: FETs in ZVS bridge

Had run into a very serious field failure issue a decade ago due to IXYS FETs used in a phase-shifted ZVS bridge topology. Eventually, the problem was tracked to failure of the FETs’ body diode when the unit operated at higher ambient temperature.

When FETs were first introduced for use in hard switching applications, it was quickly discovered that under high di/dt commutating conditions, the parasitic bipolar transistor that forms the body diode can turn on resulting in catastrophic failure (shorting) of the FET. I had run into this issue in the mid ’80s and if memory serves me correctly, IR was a leader in making their FET body diodes much more robust and capable of hard commutation. Having had this experience with FET commutation failures and after exhausting other lines of investigation which showed no problem with the operation of the ZVS bridge, I built a tester which could establish an adjustable current through the body diode of the FET under test followed by hard commutation of the body diode.

Room temperature testing of the suspect FET showed the body diode recovery characteristic similar to that of what turned out to be a more robust IR FET. Some difference was seen in the diode recovery as the IXYS FET was a bit slower and did show higher recovered charge. However, was unable to induce a failure in either the IXYS or IR FET even when commutating high values of forward diode current up to 20A when testing at room temperature.

The testing was then repeated in a heated condition. This proved to be very informative. The IXYS FETs were found to fail repeatedly with a case temperature around 80C and forward diode current prior to commutation as low as 5A. In contrast, the IR devices were operated to 125C case temp with forward diode currents of 10A without failure.

This confirmed a high temperature operating problem of the IXYS FETs associated with the body diode. Changing to the more robust IR devices solved the field failure issue.
Beware when a FET datasheet does not provide body diode di/dt limits at elevated ambient.

A more complete explanation of the FET body diode failure mechanism in ZVS applications can be found in application note APT9804 published by Advanced Power Technology.

I believe FETs can be reliably used in ZVS applications if the devices are carefully selected and shown to have robust body diode commutation characteristics.

AQ: Heavily discontinuous mode flyback design

With a heavily discontinuous mode flyback design, the transformer’s ac portion of current can be larger than the dc portion. When a high perm material is used for the transformer core, the required gap can be quite large in order to reach the low composite permeability required while the core size will likely be driven by winding and core loss considerations rather than just simply avoiding saturation. Normally the gap is put in the center leg only (with E type topology cores) in order to minimize the generation of stray fields. However, in designs such as yours (high ac with a high perm core) the needed core gap can lead to a relatively large fringing zone through which foil or solid wire may not pass without incurring excessive, unacceptable loss. Possible solutions are to use Litz wire windings or inert spacers (e.g., tape) around the center leg in order to keep the windings far enough away from the gap (the rule of thumb is 3 to 5 gap lengths, which can eat up a lot of the window area).

It is mainly for these reasons that placing half the gap in an E type core’s outer legs might be worth the trouble of dealing with the magnetic potential between the core halves (and you have seen first hand what trouble an ill designed shield band can be).

To avoid eddy current losses, the shield band should be spaced well away from the outer leg gap, probably 5 gap lengths or more. Also to be a really effective magnetic shield, it should be 3 to 5 gap lengths thick.

Bear in mind that with a high frequency, high ac current inductor design proximity effects in the winding may become very significant. This is why many of these type of inductors have single layer windings or winding wound with Litz wire (foil is the worst winding type here). One advantage of an equally gapped E type core design is that the proximity effect on the windings is significantly less because there are two gaps in series (a quasi distributed gapped core design). Not only layer-to-layer, but turn-to-turn proximity effects can sometimes be problematic in an ac inductor (or flyback) design. Just as with the gap, these are reduced by adding appropriate spacing, for example making the winding coil loose or winding it bifilar with a non-conductive filament.

AQ: Power converter trend

The trend toward lower losses in power converters is not apparent in all of the applications of power converters. It is also not apparent that the power converter solution and its losses for a given market will be the same when it comes to losses. In terms of the market shift that you mention, Prof. the answer is probably that each market is becoming split into a lower efficiency and higher efficiency solution.

From my limited view the reason for this is the effort and time required to do the low loss development. The early developers of low loss converters are now ahead and those that were slower may never catch them. This gap is in a number of converter markets widening, with both higher loss and lower loss offerings continuing to be used and sold. This split is not apparent with different levels of development or geographically.

Some markets already have very efficient solutions, other markets not so efficient and others had high power loss solutions. The customers accepted these solutions. The path to lower loss converters is for some markets not yet clear and in some markets the requirement may never actually become real.

It does seem that there is a real case to make for any power converter market splitting in two as the opportunities presented by lowering the power loss are taken.

All low loss converters present significant challenges and are all somewhat esoteric.

For me power supply EMI control consists of designing filtering for differential and common mode conducted emissions. The differential mode filtering attenuates the primary side differential lower frequency switching current fundamental & harmonic frequencies. The common mode filtering provides a low impedance return path for high frequency noise currents resulting from high dV/dt transitions during switching transitions present on the power semiconductors (switching mosfet drain, rectifier cathods). These noise currents ring at high frequencies as they oscillate in the uncontrolled parasitic inductance and capacitance associated with their return to source path. Shortening and damping this return path allows the high frequency noise currents to return locally instead of via the measurement copper bench and conducted emi current or voltage (LISN) probe as well as providing a more damped ringing frequency. Shorting this return path has the added benefit of decreasing radiated emissions. In addition proper layout of the power train so as to minimize the loop area associated with both the primary and secondary side switching currents minimizes the associated radiated emissions.

When I mentioned the criticism of resonant mode converter as related to the challenges of emi filitering I was referring to the additional differential mode filtering required. For example if you take a square wave primary side current waveform and analyze the differential frequency content the fundamental magnitude with be lower and there will be higher frequency components as compared to a purely resonant approach at the same power level. It is normally the lower frequency content that has to be filtered differentially.

Given these differences the additional emi filtering volume/cost of the resonant approach may pose a disadvantage.

AQ: Motor design

When I was doing my PhD in motor design of reluctance machines with flux assistance (switched reluctance machines and flux switching machines with magnets and/or permanently energised coils) my supervisor was doing research on the field of sensorless control (it wasn’t the area of my research but it got me thinking about it all). At the time I had thought (only in my head as a PhD student daydream) that I would have to initially force a phase (or phases) to deliberately set the rotor into a known position due to the phase firing then start a normal phase firing sequences to start and operate the motor for a normal load without the need for any form position detection (all this was assuming I had the motor running from stationary to full speed at normal expected load with use of a position sensor to start with so I could link phase firing, rotor position and timings all together to create a “map” which I could then try to use to re-program a firing sequence with no position detection at all but only if I could force the rotor to “park” itself in the same position every time before starting the machine properly – the “map” having the information to assume that the motor changes speed correctly as it changes the firing sequences as it accelerates to full speed). But any problem such as unusual load condition or fault condition (e.g. short circuit or open circuit in a phase winding) would render useless such an attempt at control with no form of position detection at all. The induction machine being sensorless and on the grid being measured.

AQ: 1:1 ratio transformer

A 1:1 ratio transformer is primarily used to isolate the primary from the secondary. In small scale electronics it isolates the noise / interference collected from the primary from being transmitted to the secondary. In critical care facilities it can be used as an isolation transformer to isolate the primary grounding of the supply from the critical grounding system of the load (secondary). In large scale applications it is used as a 3-phase delta / delta transformer equipment to isolate the grounding of the source system (primary) from the ungrounded system of the load (secondary).

In a delta – delta system, the equipment grounding is achieved by installing grounding electrodes of grounding resistance not more 25 ohms (maximum or less) as required by the National electrical code. From the grounding electrodes, grounding conductors are distributed with the feeder circuit raceways and branch circuit raceways up to the equipment where the equipment enclosures and non-current carrying parts are grounded (bonded). This scheme is predominant on installations where most of the loads are motors like industrial plants, or on shipboard installations where the systems are mostly delta-delta (ungrounded). In ships, the hull becomes the grounding electrode. Electrical installations like these have ground fault monitoring sensors to determine if there are accidental line to ground connections to the grounding system.

AQ: Sensorless control

I am curious about the definition of “sensorless control”.  When you talk about sensorless control, are you in fact meaning a lack of physical position sensor such as e.g. a magnet plus vane plus hall effect? i.e. not having a unit whose sole objective is position detection.
Is the sensorless control based around alternative methods of measurement or detection to predict position using components that have to exist for the machine to function (such as measuring or detecting voltages or currents in the windings)?

I had long ago wondered about designing a motor, fully measuring its voltage and current profiles and phase firing timings for normal operation (from stationary to full speed full load) using a position sensor for getting the motor to work and to determine the best required phase firing sequences and associated voltage/current profiles then program a microprocessor to replicate the entire required profile such that I would attempt to eliminate the need for any sensing or measurement at all (but I concluded it would come very unstuck for any fault conditions or restarting while it was still turning). So in my mind don’t all such machines require a form of measurement (i.e. some form of “sensing”) to work properly so could never be truly sensorless?

A completely sensor-less control would be completely open-loop, which isn’t reliable with some motors like PMSMs. Even if you knew the switching instants for one ideal case, too many “random” variables could influence the system (just think of the initial position), so that those firing instants could be inappropriate for other situations.

Actually, induction machines, thanks to their inherent stability properties, can be run really sensor-less (i.e. just connected to the grid or in V/f). To be honest, even in the simple grid-connection case there is an overcurrent detection somewhere in the grid, which requires some sensing.

But there can also be said the term sensorless relates to el. motor itself. In another words, it means there are not any sensors “attached” to the el. motor (which does not mean sensors cannot be in the inverter, in such a case). In our company we are using the second meaning, since it indicates no sensor connections are needed between the el. motor and the ECU (inverter).

AQ: Differences of Grounding, Bonding and Ground Fault Protection?

Grounding (or Earthing) – intentionally connecting something to the ground. This is typically done to assist in dissipating static charge and lightning energy since the earth is a poor conductor of electricity unless you get a high voltage and high current.

Bonding is the intentional interconnection of conductive items in order to tie them to the same potential plane — and this is where folks get the confusion to grounding/earthing. The intent of the bonding is to ensure that if a power circuit faults to the enclosure or device, there will be a low-impedance path back to the source so that the upstream overcurrent device(s) will operate quickly and clear the fault before either a person is seriously injured/killed or a fire originates.

Ground Fault Protection is multi-purpose, and I will stay in the Low Voltage (<600 volts) arena. One version, that ends up being seen in most locations where there is low voltage (220 or 120 volts to ground) utilization, is a typically 5-7 mA device that’s looking to ensure that current flow out the hot line comes back on the neutral/grounded conductor; this is to again protect personnel from being electrocuted when in a compromised lower resistance condition. Another version is the Equipment Ground Fault Protection, and this is used for resistive heat tracing or items like irrigation equipment; the trip levels here are around 30 mA and are more for prevention of fires. The final version of Ground Fault Protection is on larger commercial/industrial power systems operating with over 150 volts to ground/neutral (so 380Y/220, 480Y/277 are a couple typical examples) and — at least in the US and Canada — where the incoming main circuit interrupting device is at least 1000 amps (though it’s not a bad idea at lower, it’s just not mandated); here it’s used to ensure that a downstream fault is cleared to avoid fire conditions or the event of ‘Burn Down’ since there’s sufficient residual voltage present that the arc can be kept going and does not just self-extinguish.

In the Medium and High Voltage areas, the Ground Fault Protection is really just protective relaying that’s monitoring the phase currents and operating for an imbalance over a certain level that’s normally up to the system designer to determine.

AQ: PMBLDC motor in MagNet

You can build it all in MagNet using the circuit position controlled switch. You will have to use motion analysis in order to use the position controlled switches. You can also use the back EMF information to find what the optimal position for the rotor should be with respect to the stator field. The nice thing about motion is that even if you do not have the rotor in the proper position you can set the reference at start up.

Another way of determining that position is to find the maximum torque with constant current (with the right phase relationship between phases of course) and plot torque as a function of rotor position. The peak will correspond to the back EMF waveform information.

If you want to examine the behavior of the motor with an inverter then another approach works very well. There are 2 approaches you can use with MagNet: 1) co-simulation, and, 2) reduced order models. The former can be used with matlab with Simulink or Simpower Systems and runs both Matlab and MagNet simultaneously. The module linking the two systems allows 2 way communication between the modules hence sharing information. The latter requires that you get the System Model Generator (SMG) from Infolytica. The SMG will create a reduced order model of you motor which can then be used in Matlab/Simulink or any VHDL-AMS capable system simulator. A block to interpret the data file is required and is available when you get the SMG. Reduced order models are very interesting since they can very accurately simulate the motor and hook up to complex control circuits.