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.

TLV1851-Q1: TLV1851 massive rising prop delay and pulse width distortion

Part Number: TLV1851-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TLV1851, ATL431, TL331B

Hello,

I have TLV1851 with 3v3 supply, IN- @ 2.5V using for PWM logic level translation from 5Vmax, 7Vmax, 10Vmax pwm signals.
Output is high impedance, and actually the slew rate is very high so its evident there is no loading. you can't see it in the below scope shots but trust me i zoomed way in and its sharp af.

All input signals are 50% duty 500hz so period is 2ms basically.

Below is schematic vref 2v5  is coming from atl431 voltage reference. 3v3 is rock solid.




First image shows 5Vin pwm second 10V pwm. The yellow/ch1 is PWM input, blue is output, measured directly at pins of tlv1851. There is consistently 300us-400us rising prop delay and 60-100us falling prop delay across all channels.

Yes, the probe and scope are working correctly, no delay on ch2. we can probe the same signal and they are both correct.

We also read the signal from GPIO which is why we noticed this issue because the duty cycle read was completely off compared to simple NMOS based level shifter or another CMOS buffer.

The delay is an order of magnitude higher than I expect from datasheet e table, on the order of 10us. Additionally, the prop delay matching is so huge we get truncation of the pwm signal. You can see the rising tpdlh is approaching half of the high pulse, which itslef is 1ms on time, so its like unbelievable large.


I'm trying to understand how i am using this part wrong. Because the inputs are overdriven susbstantially so i would expect a mucsh lower tpdlh.

Why is the prop delay so high and not captured in d/s specs?
Why is the pulse width distortion this insane?

I mean the beyond VCC inputs are not really useful if this thing compares things this slow, we can basically only trust it with a 1hz signal.


Best

Dimitri

  • Hi DJ,

    Thanks for reaching out. I was able to test this on the bench and can confirm that I was able to see similar results of about 200us for TPLH and 50 us for TPHL.

    Essentially, this is what we would expect when operating over the rail as well as having a large differential swing on the input. 

    One method to help with this is to reduce the underdrive (and therefore reduces the TPLH) by decreasing the VREF. Instead of a 2.5V REF, can you make it a 0.5V REF? I was able to see much better results when I did this, reducing the tlph to 40-50us. Additionally you can try to divide the input signal to within the rail so that when it goes to 5V or 10V, it gets divided to say 3V.

    Sorry that this was ideally not what you were looking for but hope the changes I mentioned can help you. Was there a specific timing requirement you need the delay to be? Also did you choose TLV1851 for the nanopower or specifically for the over the rail feature?

  • For somebody who does not know the details of the design, this is not expected but suprising. Figures 6-3…6-11 show that going above V+ makes the characteristics worse, but the absence of a similar propagation delay graph, and the absence of any mention in section 7.4.1.1, implies that the effect on TPD would not be significant. Please add this information to the datasheet.

  • hi Chi,
    i appreciate you getting the bench result. I unfortunately look like i can't use this for this specific application. If the simulation model is correct, the LTC1716 that this replaces is far faster in over-the-rail performance.

    I also agree with clemens that it would be nice to have this info or statement in datasheet. thanks

    Best
    Dimitri

  • TLV1851

    i chose TLV1851 for the following reasons: over the rail functionality to avoid using a high voltage comparator with open-collector/drain output with pullup, or to have a blocking diode structure, or have high value resistor divider/ladder which effect due to tradeoff with RC delay and quiescent current drop.

    its definitely not appropriate for the socket i designed it in, and not as fast as LTC1716 for the same ckt. however still has its uses.

    I think it would be helpful to expand on the Over the rail function in greater detail in future d/s revs.


    Best

    Dimitri

  • Hi Dimitri (and Clemens),

    These are absolutely fair points and something we will make sure to highlight in the typical characteristics/apps sections in our next revision of the datasheet. TLV1851 was meant to be more of a nanopower device but you are right, the delay does increase substantially.  Again, it is unfortunate you were not able to make it work with our device. The TL331B would be able to handle this as it is faster speed, but it is open collector output and would need to reduce the reference voltage slightly to be within VCM. However, I do appreciate you for highlighting this and for your suggestions. Thanks for your use of the forum. 

  • hello Mr Chi,

    I have collected some data of TLV1851 vs LTC1716 vs a low-voltage cmp with diode input stage and 4.7kohm pullup all powered off 3v3 with no load.

    the LTC1716 as u can see its not a high speed comparator for sure with pulse width distortion of ~17us, whereas  TLV1851 pwd is 172us basically 10x that.

    i know this does not matter but here u go anyways.

    i still love ti but if yall can make a faster one that would be fantastic