• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 83 subscribers
  • Views 341 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

BOOSTXL-BUCKCONV: Deviation in SFRA Results from TIDU986A Using BOOSTXL-BUCKCONV

Conor
Guru 13915 points

Part Number: BOOSTXL-BUCKCONV
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: SFRA

Tool/software:

Hi,

We are performing a demo using the BOOSTXL-BUCKCONV, based on the TIDU986A reference design.

We conducted SFRA measurements for Lab2 (closed-loop VMC control) and Lab4 (closed-loop PCMC control). However, the measurement results significantly deviate from the data shown in TIDU986A.

We would appreciate it if you could help us determine whether this deviation is due to part tolerances, or if it indicates some abnormal behavior.

Thanks,

Conor

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 20761 points

    Hi Conor,

    Which version of the BOOSTXL-BUCKCONV hardware do you have? We worked with Biricha to update some parts of the board to improve the control loop performance. But this means the design guide images are slightly outdated if you are using the newer revision of the board. You can check the revision, C9 is populated on older revisions but DNP on the newer boards

    Regards,

    Peter

  • 0 in reply to Peter Luong
    Guru 13915 points

    Hi Peter,

    BOOSTXL-BUCKCONV was purchased via the TI store in 2025, so it is a newer version.

    Could you please share any information on the SFRA measurement results for the newer version? Or, could you give me your opinion on whether the measurement results this time are valid?

    Thanks,

    Conor

  • 0 in reply to Conor
    TI__Expert 5030 points

    Conor,

    When taking these plots have you enable load /continuous load to enable onboard load on VOUT as shown below?

    When I tested from my side, same hardware is giving similar/better performance as compare to the user guide and with minor tuning we may able to match user guide as well 

    Lab2: 

    Lab4 PCMC

    Regards,

    Sumit

  • 0 in reply to Sumit Patil1
    Guru 13915 points

    Hi Sumit,

    We have enabled activeLoadEnable and activeLoadContEnable and are conducting verification, but the measurement results appear to be unreliable.

    Thanks,

    Conor

  • 0 in reply to Conor
    TI__Expert 5030 points

    Conor,

    It seems nature of bode plot seems correct, just crossover frequency need to be pushed higher. Also, do you have C9 with 10nF? 

    Just to double confirm, have you set all the configuration on launchpad and booster pack as per the user guide? Especially jumpers on booster packs.

    Also, when both load is ON source current should be 9V/0.4A with 2Vout. Could you please confirm that your source current is ~0.4A? Also could you please check if your expression window values are same as shown in user guide? if not then could you please send the screen shot of the same with highlighting what parameters are not matching?

    Regards,

    Sumit