• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8 replies
  • Subscribers 40 subscribers
  • Views 746 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TPS71550-Q1

Neil Albaugh
Genius 5430 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TINA-TI

Where is a TINA model for this LDO? Where is a TINA "reference design" with this LDO?

Why can't a Webench circuit be exported to TINA? Why support non-TI simulation tools and not the one offered by TI? Your TINA support needs improvement.

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 39210 points

    Neil,

    I will add this to the TINA-TI Translation queue.

  • 0 in reply to Nikhil Gupta (Product Folder Models)
    TI__Mastermind 39210 points

    Neil,

    We have enabled Simulation Export from WEBENCH to TINA-TI for this device. Please refer to the document below for instructions on how to do so.

    Thanks,

  • 0 in reply to Nikhil Gupta (Product Folder Models)
    Genius 5430 points

    Following your procedure, I exported that circuit to TINA 10 Industrial and replaced the input source with an 8V battery and the output load resistor with a 1k resistor,

    Running a DC simulation on this circuit produces an output voltage of 1.2 mV with an input current of 125 mA. Unfortunately I cannot tell what the mysterious two extra pins on your symbol are due to the encrypted macro. Clearly the model is not working correctly. This DC simulation is pretty basic for a 3-terminal voltage regulator!

    Can't you simply provide a working "reference design" for TINA without first going through Webench and then exporting the circuit into TINA? The analog guys provide nice, working TINA reference designs for their op amps and don't use encrypted macros. What's the purpose of using encryption anyway?

     

  • 0 in reply to Neil Albaugh
    TI__Mastermind 39210 points
    Neil,

    Can you explain what you are trying to do by running a DC simulation on this model? The model has to go through soft start to get to the final programmed value. Please run a transient simulation to observe your results.

    Thanks,
  • 0 in reply to Nikhil Gupta (Product Folder Models)
    Genius 5430 points
    Just that-- run a DC simulation. Apparently this macromodel is not anything useful except for a transient.

    I, like others I'm sure, want to put this device into a larger circuit with many other devices and then run appropriate AC, DC, transient, or noise simulations. Why make this so difficult?
  • 0 in reply to Neil Albaugh
    TI__Mastermind 39210 points

    If you want to run a DC simulation to see the steady state voltage on Vout do the following

    1. Check the Output Cap model, you will notice it has IC = 0 this  test bench is setup for a Startup Simulation (mentioned in the title).  If you run a DC analysis on this test bench as is, you will get Vout = the initial condition on Cout which is 0V.

    2. Replace this cap with with a primitive cap in TINA-TI with whatever value you want to use for Cout. By default it will not have any Initial Condition.

    3. Now when you run the DC analysis, you will see the correct Vout.

  • 0 in reply to Nikhil Gupta (Product Folder Models)
    Genius 5430 points

    Replacing those special-conditions capacitors with real-world capacitors now give a proper DC simulation result- thank you.

    Wouldn't it be simpler to just publish a TINA "Reference Circuit" in the first place instead of wasting all this time? This is an endemic problem with TI power devices. Quit using encrypted models and create normal Spice- based macromodels that are compatible with TINA. If & when necessary, create circuits with initial conditions, etc that illustrate a particular operating condition of that device--- in addition to its normal "Reference Circuit".

  • 0 in reply to Neil Albaugh
    TI__Mastermind 39210 points
    Neil,

    Thanks for your suggestions. I hear you, but we have to have a fine balance between protecting our IP and releasing unencrypted models. We have infact starting having this discussion internally already. This year itself, we have released over 640 unencrypted models (that were previously encrypted). We are in the process of releasing more wherever we feel they are applicable.

    To find all unencrypted power models, just go to the Spicerack link below and search for the keyword "unencrypted"

    Thanks,