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.

TMS320F28379D: tms320f28379

Part Number: TMS320F28379D
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: UCD3138, UCD7138

It seems that the "reply" to Brian's response was not put in correctly.

Here is the related question:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biran

Thnx much for the prompt reply.

Now it gets a bit interesting & perhaps challenging.

Here is why.

#1 So we will use the control card until we have our own sch integrated with the rest of the package.  We see a path forward with mathworks as they have deep levels of support for F28379D. The initial control will be through simulink modeled PID but down the road, we have to add a Fuzzy Logic Controller in its place as the PID won't satisfy all the specs. So we have to keep enough computing/memory power available. Albeit, ours will be a simple FLC. Only voltage mode will suffice.

#2 We were using UCD3138 based HB-LLC for a 380v to 5/80 amp module. But now thinking, would it be possible to have the Delfino run both?

 We have a bit of a real estate issue on the PCB in a tight enclosure( with no other thermal mgmnt than the base plate). So if we do not have to use the whole inslata with UCD3138 control card, it will be a great benefit. Note in passing that in order to squeeze all the LLC stuff in, we use  GAN all over including the sync rectifiers (EPC2024) using UCD7138. Delfino has a FB-LLC design guide, FW etc... a matter of scaling the output & other parameters.

#3 Even though Interleaved  FB-LLC  will need another set of LLC power stage, somehow, it is not a problem! Our  2x40 amp pkg is really small. It entirely entails from having very high efficiency.

So how will this path look like? Having 2 independent converters controlled by one Delfino with 2 distinctly different control scheme? Feedbacks for each, of course, are isolated. Drivers are isolated( & compact  - no xmfrs) so grounding issues are well managed.

Any comments will be highly appreciated.

  • Hi Robin,

    Our apologies for the lack of response to the follow-on questions.  Brian is an employee of The Mathworks and naturally has a lot of knowledge there.  However, TI or other community members will likely have deeper advice on some of the questions you more recently posed.

    For most PFC + DC/DC applications, the thing that often prevents one controller from controlling both power stages is the need (ie cost) to isolate some of the analog signals.  Since you're saying that all your signals are inherently isolated, using only one controller for both power stages seems very feasible.

    With the F2837xD, you should be able to run your two converters on different computing cores and keep them from interfering with each other.  And you should have sufficient performance bandwidth.

    [note that tthe F2837xD actually has 4 different computing cores (2 CPU subsystems, each containing a CPU core & a CLA).  The device is designed so that each of these two subsystems can have peripherals specifically allocated to each - meaning that each CPU can be seen as truly independent & without hidden arbitration]

    As you've seen there's some reference designs/software that may help to serve as a starting point:
    http://www.ti.com/microcontrollers/c2000-real-time-control-mcus/applications/solar-digital-power.html
    http://www.ti.com/tool/TIEVM-VIENNARECT
    http://www.ti.com/tool/TIDM-1001

    Note that if you decide to use two separate controllers, I would think that a F28004x should have adequate CPU bandwidth for either controller, for most applications.


    Thank you,
    Brett

  • Brett

    No worries!

    Brian's reply was welcome with us.....

    So is yours: we are on to a challenging journey here.

    Reason for selecting F28379d is that one-half of our tasks are already pretty well designed & with FW to edit in this MCU by TI. We like FRA capabilities too. We will be making heavy use of that. 

    In a tight pkg, we would give our 150% efforts to keep 1 control card...on top, our PFC will benefit from FRA as well.

    We do foresee many questions on integration: and we are encouraged on this path because of tremendous support from you guys!

    thnx much

    robin