Category: Blog

Home  ›  Blog  ›  Page 20

AQ: Experience: Power Supply

My first big one: I had just joined a large corporation’s central R and D in Mumbai (my first job) and I was dying to prove to them that they were really very wise (for hiring me). I set up my first AC-DC power supply for the first few weeks. Then one afternoon I powered it up. After a few minutes as I stared intently at it, there was a thunderous explosion…I was almost knocked over backwards in my chair. When I came to my senses I discovered that the can of the large high-voltage bulk cap had just exploded (those days 1000uF/400V caps were real big)…the bare metal can had taken off like a projectile and hit me thump on the chest through my shirt (yet it was very red at that spot even till hours later). A shower of cellulose and some drippy stuff was all over my hair and face. Plus a small crowd of gawking engineers when I came to. Plus a terribly bruised ego in case you didn’t notice. Now this is not just a picturesque story. There is a reason why they now have safety vents in Aluminum Caps (on the underside too), and why they ask you never never to even accidentally apply reverse polarity, especially to a high-voltage Al cap. Keep in mind that an Al Elko is certainly damaged by reverse voltage or overvoltage, but the failure mechanism is simply excessive heat generation in both cases. Philips components, in older datasheets, used to actually specify that their Al Elkos could tolerate an overvoltage of 40% for maybe a second I think, with no long-term damage. And people often wonder why I only use 63V Al Elkos as the bulk cap in PoE applications (for the PD). They suggest 100V, and warn me about surges and so on. But I still think 63V is OK here, besides being cheap, and I tend to shun overdesign. In fact I think even ceramic caps can typically handle at least 40% overvoltage by design and test — and almost forever with no long term effects. Maybe wrong here though. Double check that please.

Another historic explosion I heard about after I had left an old power supply company. I deny any credit for this though. My old tech, I heard, in my absence, was trying to document the stresses in the 800W power supply which I had built and left behind. The front-end was a PFC with four or five paralleled PFC FETs. I had carefully put in ballasting resistors in the source and gates of each Fet separately, also diligently symmetrical PCB traces from lower node of each sense resistor to ground (two sided PCB, no ground plane). This was done to ensure no parasitic resonances and good dynamic current sharing too. There was a method to my madness it turns out. All that the tech did was, when asked to document the current in the PFC Fets, placed a small loop of wire in series with the source of one of these paralleled Fets. That started a spectacular fireworks display which I heard lasted over 30 seconds (what no fuse???), with each part of the power supply going up in flames almost sequentially in domino effect, with a small crowd staring in silence along with the completely startled but unscathed tech (lucky guy). After that he certainly never forgot this key lesson: never attempt to measure FET current by putting a current probe in its source— put it on the drain side. It was that simple. The same unit never exploded after that, just to complete the story.

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: PPE (Personal Protective Equipment)

When I think of using PPE as a controls engineer, I think
about electrical shock and arc-flash safety in working with electrical devices.

The PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) requirements to work on live electrical
equipment is making doing commissioning, startup, and tuning of electrical
control systems awkward and cumbersome. We are at a stage where the use of PPE
is now required but practice has not caught up with the requirements. While
many are resisting this change, it seems inevitable that we will need to wear
proper PPE equipment when working on any control panel with exposed voltages of
50 volts or more.

With many electrical panels not labeled for shock and arc-flash hazard levels,
the default PPE requires a full (Category 2+) suit in most cases, which is very
awkward indeed. What can we do to allow us to work on live equipment in a safe
manner that meets the now not so new requirements for shock and arc-flash
safety?

Increasingly the thinking is to design our systems for shock and arc-flash
safety. Typically low voltage (less than 50 volts), 120VAC, and 480 VAC power
were often placed in the same control enclosure. While this is cost effective,
it is now problematic when wanting to do work on even the low voltage area of
the panel. The rules do not appear to allow distinguishing areas of a panel as
safe, while another is unsafe. The entire panel is either one or the other. One
could attempt to argue this point, but wouldn’t it be better to just design our
systems so that we are clearly on the side of compliance?

Here are my thoughts to improve electrical shock and arc flash safety by
designing this safety into electrical control panels.

1. Keep the power components separate from the signal level components so that
maintenance and other engineers can work on the equipment without such hazards
being present. That’s the principle. What are some ideas for putting this into
practice?

2. Run as much as possible on 24VDC as possible. This would include the PLC’s
and most other panel devices. A separate panel would then house only these shock
and arc-flash safe electrical components.

3. Power Supplies could be placed in a separate enclosure or included in the
main (low voltage) panel but grouped together and protected separately so that
there are no exposed conductors or terminals that can be reached with even a
tool when the control panel door is opened.

4. Motor Controls running at anything over 50 volts should be contained in a
separate enclosure. Try remoting the motor controls away from the power devices
where possible. This includes putting the HIM (keypad) modules for a VFD
(Variable Frequency Drive) for example on the outside of the control panel, so
the panel does not have to be opened. Also, using the traditional MCC (Motor
Control Centers) enclosures is looking increasing attractive to minimize the
need for PPE equipment.

For example “finger safe” design does not meet the requirements for arc-flash
safety. Also making voltage measurements to check for power is considered one
of, if not the most hazardous activity as far as arc-flash goes.

AQ: Voltage transmission & distribution

If you look back over history you will find how things started out from the early engineers and scientists looking at materials and developing systems that would meet their transmission goals. I recall when drives (essentially ac/dc/ac converters) had an upper limit around 200 to 230 volts). In Edison and Tesla days there was a huge struggle to pick DC or AC and AC prevailed mainly because it was economical to make AC machines. Systems were built based on available materials and put in operation. Some worked great some failed. When they failed they were analyzed and better systems built. Higher and higher voltages lowered copper content and therefore cost as insulators improved. Eventually commitees formed and reviewed what worked and developed standards. Then by logical induction it was determined what advances could be made in a cost effective and reliable manner. A lot of “use this” practice crept in. By this I mean for example, I worked at a company and one customer bought 3,000 transformers over the course of ten years, They had a specific size enclosure they wanted.

Due to high volume purchase the cost of the enclosure was low. Other small jobs came thru and this low cost enclosure was used on them to expedite delivery and keep cost minimum. Guess what, that enclosure is now a standard enclosure there because it was used on hundreds of designs over ten years. Is it the most economical box, probably not in the pure engineering sense but changing something that works is seldom a good idea. Today, they are raising voltage levels to new high values. I read of a project in Germany to run HVDC linesover huge distance. They are working to overcome a problem they foresee. How do you break the circuit with HVDC economically. If you ever put DC thru a small contactor maybe 600VDC you find quickly that the arc opening the contactor melts the contacts. Now, what do you do at 800kVDC or 1.2MVDC. What will the cost of the control circuit be to control this voltage level. (Edison and Tesla all over again)And there you have it, my only push for the subject of history to be taught.

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).